Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Anti-Semitism (Middle East)

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): What recent representations he has made to Governments in the middle east about anti-Semitism. [158607]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): We deplore anti-Semitism, as we deplore racism and xenophobia wherever they arise, and we condemn any incitement to hatred and violence. We have consistently called on all parties in the middle east to do everything possible to desist from such incitement and to curb extremism.

Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend condemn categorically the well-documented anti-Semitism that is emanating from the middle east? Specifically, will he condemn the article that appeared in the Egyptian state newspaper Al Ahram in November 2000? The article repeated the blood libel and stated that Arab children had been abducted by Jews who wanted to use their blood for baking Passover matzo. Will he also condemn Syria for the statements that appeared in Tishreen, the state-owned press, in January this year? The report condemned Zionists for trying
to suffocate the voice of … David Irving, who proved the holocaust to be an illusion, the product of the Zionist imagination.
Does my hon. Friend agree that anti-Semitism in the Arab world, as elsewhere, is a barrier to achieving true justice for Palestinians and Israelis? Will he also condemn its ugly manifestations in this country, which include the attack on the Chief Rabbi and his wife as they made their way to celebrations of Israel's independence day last week?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes some very good points. The point about racism that should always be borne in mind is that, in any form, it disfigures those who are responsible for it more than those against whom it is directed. In respect of the attacks that she mentioned, which we all deplore, it should also be borne in mind that anybody who uses the language of racism must assume that an audience is listening to what he or she is saying or writing and that that audience is subject to incitement.

Such people therefore bear a heavy responsibility. I repeat my initial statement: we condemn anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia in all their forms.

Sir Peter Tapsell: As both the Arabs and the Jews are Semitic races, will the Minister try to persuade the Secretary of State that it would be more than usually fatuous of him to send a racist message to either of them, or even to pontificate to them about their national diet?

Mr. Wilson: I fear that we have just heard yet another bad example of the views of a senior member of the Tory party. The hon. Gentleman makes an unhelpful contribution. I would have thought that every hon. Member would agree that this a serious subject. I am not interested in dealing with semantics; I am being asked to speak about anti-Semitism. Let me make it clear again, without equivocation or any play upon words, that we condemn anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia, from whatever source they come—full stop, no fancy words and no messing about. One should condemn them and then live as one speaks.

Mr. Richard Burden: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about condemning racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism wherever they arise, as anti-Semitism affects both Arabs and Jews. Will he confirm the Government's view that discrimination should be tackled wherever it exists in the middle east? Does he agree that we must register concern about water supplies in the west bank, 90 per cent. of which are reserved for Israeli settlements? That is a matter of discrimination on which it is right for us to register our concern.

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We try to practise what we preach by telling both parties to the conflict in the middle east that the only way to advance is through dialogue and an end to violence. Part of that process must be an end to the abuses that are coming from all directions, against all parties. They must try to draw the line and get back to dialogue. In that way, we can go forward. The specific abuse to which he referred is, of course, wrong. The closures are wrong. We make these points, but I return to the original point: we condemn racism, prejudice and bigotry, from whatever source they come.

Sir Peter Lloyd: Will the Minister also condemn those who try to brand as anti-Semitic people who criticise Israeli Government policy, especially people who deplore the cruel and excessive reaction of the Israeli authorities to the unrest that their illegal settlements inevitably provoke? Peace process or no peace process, those settlements are ever expanding, and young Palestinians see their homeland rapidly shrinking. Will the Minister acknowledge that such name calling is used by some to try to silence those who wish the Jewish people well, but realise that their policies on Palestine are futile for everybody in the middle east, not least the Israelis?

Mr. Wilson: I generally agree with the early part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, I am wary of giving a blanket endorsement to what he described as


inevitable provocation. Deeds should be judged on their merits; provocation should not be assumed to be inevitable.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that one can criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic. It is important to maintain a distinction. No one should attribute false motives to critics in order to protect themselves against legitimate political criticism. The more such debates are debased by the sort of language that we discussed earlier, the more difficult it becomes to maintain the distinction. However, its maintenance is important in the interests of dialogue, debate and decency. One can criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic and the Arabs without being racist. One can criticise hon. Members and other politicians not on the basis of race or religion, but genuine political belief.

Oral Answers to Questions — Visa Applications (Dhaka)

Ms Oona King: If he will make a statement on the waiting time for visa applications submitted to the British high commission in Dhaka. [158608]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am pleased to report considerable improvement in recent months. All straightforward visit visa applications are resolved within 24 hours. Applicants for visit visas that require an in-depth interview currently wait eight days.
Current queues for settlement visa applications are: 18 weeks for right of abode and dependent relatives over 65; 26 weeks for spouses and dependent children; 18 weeks for fiancés and other settlement categories; and 38 weeks for reapplicants.

Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I also wish to put on record my thanks to Adrian Loxton, the second secretary at the British high commission in Dhaka. He and his team have worked incredibly hard to reduce waiting times for settlement applications. Will the Minister reassure me that our post in Dhaka will receive the necessary resources so that applicants do not have to wait longer than people in any other part of the world? Will he also give us some idea of when the new visa section in Sylhet will open? If he does not have the information to hand, perhaps he will write to me about it because it is important to my constituents.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments about the staff in Dhaka. I will ensure that her message, which will be much appreciated, is conveyed to them. Like me, they know of her long-standing interest in the matter.
The number of applications in Dhaka continues to increase. It is a busy post, and the first three months of the year show an increase of 36 per cent. in new applications. To some extent, that reflects the better service that is being provided. However, we are working on providing additional staff for Dhaka to improve matters further.
I assure my hon. Friend that plans for Sylhet are going ahead and that there is a close working relationship with Dhaka. Premises have been identified for the new office. The high commissioner has the seen the proposed

premises and we hope to establish the section later this year. We will certainly do so according to the tightest timetable. I shall write to my hon. Friend with further information.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that a new visa section will open in Sylhet? When will that happen? In the meantime, will the immigration advisory service be funded fairly for its invaluable work and advice in that part of Bangladesh?

Mr. Wilson: The function of the office in Sylhet is to provide advice and information to visa applicants in the region. The staff will be able to accept, check and forward applications to Dhaka for decision. However, the additional cost of posting UK-based entry clearance staff to Sylhet permanently would have been unacceptable.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister reported figures that revealed that spouses and their children trying to join people here in Britain still have to wait six months in Bangladesh for an interview for entry clearance. We have made great progress in speeding up some of the queues, so will we soon be able to tell our constituents that they will not have to wait that long for their families to be reunited?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The figures that I quoted show that two of the four categories are still falling short of their targets. In the case of spouses and dependent children, the target is 13 weeks and the actual figure is 26 weeks. I assure her that every effort will be made to reach the target figure and that the necessary investment and resources will be put into ensuring that that can happen. I hope that that is a positive message. Equally, I hope that it sends a positive message that so much has been done in recent months to improve the previous position.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATO

Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he will next meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss the future of NATO; and if he will make a statement. [158609]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I regularly speak by phone to Secretary of State Powell, most recently yesterday evening. We will next meet later this month at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Budapest, when I expect that we will both discuss the future of NATO and confirm our continuing confidence in it.

Mr. Fabricant: Notwithstanding his telephone conversation last night, does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is growing disquiet in the United States about the relationship between the United States and Europe? Just two or three hours ago, the Washington Post and The New York Times published an article following Gerhard Schröder's statement yesterday, which included the following quote from Reimund Seidelmann:
There is a long tradition in German foreign policy of giving up sovereignty in order to increase, indirectly, Germany's influence over Europe … This has been the German recipe for increasing power ever since the end of World War II.


Whatever the truth of that statement, does not the Foreign Secretary accept that such disquiet exists? What can he do to allay the growing American Euroscepticism in Washington DC?

Mr. Cook: I must confess that I got slightly lost halfway through that question about the relevance of the quotation about Germany. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is a real danger of a rift between Washington and Berlin, I would have thought that that would confirm the strategy of this Government in making sure that we have respect in both places, so that we can go between them.
I find the presumption of Conservative Members quite extraordinary, in that they claim to interpret American public opinion better than those who are elected by American public opinion. Both Secretary of State Powell and the President of the United States of America have expressed confidence in their relations with Britain and in the European security initiative. The hon. Gentleman really should stop trying to upstage the President of the United States.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity, in his exchanges with the Americans, to make the point that while many of us here recognise the United States' critical role in the leadership of NATO, its preparing, possibly unilaterally, to breach the anti-ballistic missile treaty by going ahead with the national missile defence system is not an agenda around which NATO will unite?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the issues of national missile defence and President Bush's forthcoming speech were discussed by Secretary of State Powell and me last night. I welcome President Bush's commitment to early and senior consultation with his allies. That is what we asked for and we are glad that he has agreed to it. On the question of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, we have repeatedly said to our American friends that any step that they take should be in consultation and agreement with Russia. I am, therefore, glad that President Bush will be speaking to President Putin today.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Notwithstanding that answer, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on the cohesion of NATO if President Bush, as widely reported, announces later today that he proposes to depart from the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972 in spite of the reservations, both public and private, of all the European members of NATO? When the Foreign Secretary next meets Colin Powell, will he impress on him that the United Kingdom, like all the other European members of NATO, is strongly committed to a multilateral nuclear non-proliferation regime, and that any action that provokes an increase in existing nuclear arsenals or that undermines the existing strategic balance should be avoided at all costs?

Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with the last point. It is very important for us to take advantage of the change in international relations post-cold war to achieve deep cuts in nuclear arsenals. I also fully accept that such deep cuts would be of great value to us in containing nuclear proliferation. That is why I warmly welcome the passage

in the speech that President Bush will deliver tonight in which he looks forward to working with Russia to make deep cuts in offensive nuclear systems.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred to an article in the Washington Post about recent views expressed in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that American Administrations have frequently said in the past that European member states of NATO should shoulder a greater burden of defence? Does he not find it somewhat curious that Opposition Members are attacking the steps that European member states are taking to make their defence contribution to NATO more effective?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right: a strong theme in the present Administration is the wish to achieve fairer burden sharing in the military responsibility of securing crisis management in Europe. That is why President Bush has said that the European security defence project will make Europe a stronger, more capable partner. I find it strange that Opposition Members, having claimed to be the people who interpret the United States for us, should oppose a measure that will help us to shoulder that fairer share of the military burden in Europe.

Mr. Francis Maude: The Prime Minister assured President Bush at Camp David that the European army would be "anchored within NATO". The Nice agreement obviously shows that that is not true, but it would help if DSACEUR, NATO's deputy commander in Europe, were to act as chairman of the EU's Military Committee. Did the Foreign Secretary propose that, or does he agree with France's chief of defence staff, General Kelche, who has said that NATO has nothing to do with this?

Mr. Cook: General Kelche said:
Europeans are not building a force independent from NATO, they are simply trying to strengthen their capability to manage crisis situations".
I should have thought that Opposition Members, even including the right hon. Gentleman, would wish to share that objective.
As for the Nice documents, I wish the right hon. Gentleman would stop pretending that they are secret documents that we have managed to stop the Americans getting their hands on. They were widely circulated by NATO ambassadors, including the United States ambassador, and are widely available in Washington. By constantly pretending that President Bush has somehow been hoodwinked by the British Government into not reading them, the right hon. Gentleman is insulting not only the transparency of the British Government but the intelligence of President Bush.

Mr. Maude: It is increasingly clear that the Prime Minister's assurances to President Bush at Camp David are proving about as reliable as his promises to the British people.
In the light of the speech on missile defence that the President will make later today, will the Foreign Secretary now take the opportunity to make the Government's view absolutely clear? The Secretary of State for Defence said in March last year that he would look sympathetically at


requests for the upgrading of Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. Will he have the Foreign Secretary's support in that, or is the Foreign Secretary too keen to curry favour with the CND types on his Back Benches, who are dogmatically opposed to such a move?

Mr. Cook: If that is the best that the right hon. Gentleman can do, it really is time that we cleared the air for a fresh start by consulting the wider public in the election.
Of course any decision that we reach when we receive a request will be a collective decision. I fully understand the United States' concern about missile proliferation—we share that concern, and want to work with the United States against such proliferation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Kyoto Protocol

Mr. Geraint Davies: What role his Department is playing in negotiations with the United States in relation to the Kyoto protocol. [158610]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What discussions he has had with his US counterparts on implementing the Kyoto protocol. [158613]

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What recent representations he has made to the President of the United States about his position on the Kyoto agreement on climate change; and if he will make a statement. [158617]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is playing a full role in Government discussions with the United States on the Kyoto protocol. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the issue on several occasions with his American counterpart, Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The Government are committed to tackling climate change through constructive engagement with the international community and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spelt out, we continue to believe that the Kyoto protocol provides the best framework for that. We will continue to discuss with the Americans their participation in international efforts to tackle climate change during their review of climate policy in Washington, and in the run-up to the resumed international negotiations in Bonn in July.

Mr. Davies: In 1998, the cost of weather-related insurance claims in the United States was $89 billion—more than the entire cost in the 1980s. Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of climate change on the United States economy—tornadoes, floods, droughts and desert expansion—clearly illustrates that the Kyoto protocol is as much about economic sustainability as environmental sustainability? Will he impress upon the new United States Administration that saving the planet and world prosperity are two sides of the same coin?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point in stressing that sustainability, economic and environmental, is key in the long term. Doing nothing and leaving things as they are would have a negative impact. I like to be more positive. Cleaning up the environment and tackling

pollution will develop new environmental industries that will design out pollution and generate new jobs. Tackling the challenges of the environment will produce new jobs. It is a good, positive, win-win story.

Mr. Griffiths: Can this and other European Governments be so powerless that George Bush, who bought the presidency and now wants to sell the world, can get away with murdering the environment? After Trieste, when Bush went along with Kyoto—he now repudiates it—can this Government, or any Government, trust anything that the American Administration say on any international subject?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has highlighted the challenges that we face in ensuring that the Kyoto protocol is signed up to. On his campaign website, I noticed some scientific references to the latest international panel on climate change, spelling out the impact of climate change. There is more or less consensus among the world's best scientists that human activity has an impact and is causing global warming. It does not say on his website that that intergovernmental panel has been endorsed by the American Government. That gives us something to work with, but we should continue the conversation with the Americans to encourage them to accept that although they are part of the problem, producing 25 per cent. of CO2 emissions in the world, they can also be a major part of the solution.

Mrs. Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the "W" in George W. Bush may stand for, he would do well to visit the WWW—the worldwide web? Will he urge him to look at the site www.kyoto-cola.org, where he would perhaps find that the only key that the world has to tackle climate change is the Kyoto protocol?

Mr. Battle: I cannot restate often enough that we believe that the Kyoto protocol will provide the best framework. We want and intend to work with it. It is important to add that we are prepared to ratify the Kyoto protocol without the United States if necessary, and will continue to work towards its entry into force in 2002, assuming that we can get an acceptable outcome at the resumed international negotiations in Bonn in July. Pulling all the countries of the world together is an international challenge, but it is important that the developed world provides the lead by example. I am glad to say that, under this Government, the United Kingdom has been doing that. We have exceeded the target commitments that we signed up to.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What will be the implications of United States policy for our stance in future trade negotiations at the World Trade Organisation and with America, given that, in the short term at least, American policy of ignoring the Kyoto protocol will mean that USA industry has a competitive advantage over our own?

Mr. Battle: Again, I would prefer to take things from where we are. The key point is to continue to engage and negotiate constructively with the Americans, saying that there is a consensus on the science and that we must find ways in which to bring about reductions in CO2 emissions internationally. We are playing our part in Britain, we are


pressing others in Europe to do so and I think that we can go further than has been suggested recently by the Americans.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope that the Labour party will not use Kyoto as an excuse to knock President Bush or the United States of America. We all wish to see progress in reducing carbon emissions, but we must be realistic about the fact that President Bush says that he is not about to do anything, particularly with the downturn in the US economy, that will damage jobs or industry in the United States. Will the Minister therefore use the summit in Germany this summer as an opportunity to look at fresh ways of ensuring that the whole world plays its part in reducing pollution, including India and China?

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Government who, I seem to recall, did not do much to introduce programmes for renewable energies or ideas for emissions trading as new and imaginative ways of hitting the target. We have not used the previous Government's argument that we can do nothing until we get the economy right—we have got the economy right and we are delivering on the environment as well. We will continue to campaign for that internationally.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: While we all share concerns over the American decision to abandon the Kyoto protocol on climate change, does the Minister consider the Deputy Prime Minister the right man to carry out sensitive discussions with the United States when the right hon. Gentleman was described at The Hague climate talks by the French Environment Minister, Dominique Voynet, as a male chauvinist pig who had lost his nerve and lost his cool? Before visiting the United States last month, the Deputy Prime Minister talked up a storm. He promised bilateral talks and even told GMTV that he would be arguing the case on Kyoto.
While my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) met the Vice President and other senior figures last month, did the Deputy Prime Minister meet anyone in the new Administration? Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman lost his nerve again and that in the United States, on Kyoto, he achieved nothing and influenced no one? After all, is that not what happens when we send a male chauvinist pig to do a diplomat's job?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I require temperate language in this House.

Mr. Battle: I was a little disappointed that the hon. Lady should reduce this discussion to petty personal remarks. We are talking about probably the greatest challenge of the 21st century. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister championed Kyoto and is widely respected for doing so. He was at the meeting in New York, where he strongly supported the Kyoto protocol, and he found support for Kyoto from all the other parties there. He met 35 colleagues, including representatives of the United States of America. He is

widely respected for his campaigning on this matter. There was a notable absence of such campaigning when the previous Government were running the country.

Mr. David Chaytor: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to discuss these matters with his counterparts in the Australian Government, who I understand have stated in the past few days that Kyoto is dead because of President Bush's decision? Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a question not simply of persuading the American Government to see sense, but of persuading all the countries that constitute the American bloc in the climate change conference? Although it is possible to ratify Kyoto without the support of the United States, it may not be possible to do so without the support of all the other countries in the American negotiating bloc.

Mr. Battle: I do not accept that Kyoto is dead, which is the term that has been used. The Kyoto protocol is the culmination of 10 years of international environmental diplomacy. It is the best framework available for taking action to tackle climate change, and I do not believe that we can back out now. There is strong international support for Kyoto, as was evident at the informal ministerial meeting in New York attended by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Japan and Canada were negotiating with America, and they strongly support Kyoto.
All the key players are coming out in support of the agreement, and Britain and the EU remain committed to its ratification by 2002. There is some time to go, and there is hard work to be done to persuade those countries that have signed up to Kyoto that it is the realistic framework and option for taking action. I am confident that we can make progress, and we are campaigning at every level to achieve that. That contrasts with the way in which Opposition Members occasionally reduce the matter to petty personal comments.

Oral Answers to Questions — Commonwealth Monitoring Action Group

Mr. Julian Brazier: If he will make a statement on the Commonwealth monitoring action group mission to Zimbabwe. [158612]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Government of Zimbabwe continue to prevaricate on a date when they can receive the mission of Commonwealth Ministers to convey our concerns. I wrote last week to Don McKinnon, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, to stress that it was now all the more urgent that the mission should go ahead.
Our own concerns are now even greater. The Minister of State with responsibility for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), summoned the Zimbabwean high commissioner to the Foreign Office last week to protest at the war veterans' programme of intimidation and extortion against the business community, with which there is clear official connivance. The targets include businesses from half the countries of the European Union and a transit depot of EU humanitarian aid. I will be raising these attacks with my colleagues this weekend at the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers.
The worsening situation in Zimbabwe was fairly expressed by the International Bar Association, which warned last week that there was a growing culture of impunity among those who carried out intimidation, and that the rule of law was now in the gravest peril.

Mr. Brazier: For how much longer will the Government continue simply to wring their hands while Mugabe terrorises the Opposition, intimidates the courts, suppresses the press, stirs up racial hatred of the worst sort and even conspires in the murder of his own citizens? The Government supported the immediate suspension of Pakistan from the Commonwealth Council as soon as a coup took place in that country, even though the Government thus brought to power were much less unpleasant than the present Government in Zimbabwe. Why have not the Government supported Zimbabwe's immediate suspension from the Commonwealth, and economic sanctions?

Mr. Cook: First, I reject economic sanctions. It would be a grave mistake for the Government to apply such a sanction, which would deal a very grave blow to the innocent people of Zimbabwe. They have suffered enough already under the appalling economic mismanagement of President Mugabe. I do not think that it would be wise of Britain to volunteer to allow Mugabe to make us the scapegoat for his errors.
The hon. Gentleman must not underrate the enormous number of steps that the Government have taken already. We have imposed a complete arms embargo on Zimbabwe, halted the provision of Land Rovers to the police and cut aid to Zimbabwe by one third. All that is in complete contrast to the behaviour of the previous Conservative Government, who increased aid to Zimbabwe at the time of the Matabeleland massacres, when 10,000 people were killed.
This Government have also withdrawn the British military advisory training team from Zimbabwe. We have raised the question of Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United Nations, and we have received support in all of them. At last month's Question Time, I asked Conservative Members whether they could name one other organisation in the international community to which I could go to seek support. I said that I would seek that support, but I am still awaiting an answer.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The activities of the so-called war veterans, in collusion with the Government of Zimbabwe, clearly affect the whole of southern Africa as well as the country itself, because they deal a blow to investor confidence. Investment in the region is already very scarce, and will suffer further as a result. Has my right hon. Friend seen any evidence of a change of position on the part of the South African President when it comes to leaning on Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe owes South Africa substantially, both politically and in terms of moneys given for energy and other matters.

Mr. Cook: I am pleased to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that I saw the South African Foreign Minister yesterday. We had a full discussion on Zimbabwe. She stressed to me the words used by President Mbeke at one

of the international investment conferences, when he expressed South Africa's serious and growing concern about the situation in Zimbabwe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is right: the crisis in Zimbabwe is especially acute for the people of that country, but it is having a dramatic and serious economic effect on neighbouring countries such as South Africa and Mozambique. We are working with those countries to find out how we can together to achieve a change in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the situation is no longer one in which Mugabe can possibly claim that his campaign is simply against white farmers? In Binga, for example, the local government offices have been closed—as far as one can tell, because 89 per cent. of the province voted for the Movement for Democratic Change. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the public in this country realise that this is no longer a war against the commercial farms, but a war against Mugabe's own people?

Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. In the past 10 days, more than 200 companies have been targeted by the war veterans within Zimbabwe, the majority of which, we believe, are Zimbabwean. They include a number that are part-owned by ZANU-PF, which are being invaded by the war veterans. We are not entirely clear whether it was understood that these were ZANU-PF companies, but the veterans were certainly acting against local companies and knew that they were doing so. At present, we are witnessing a concerted campaign of intimidation by President Mugabe, which is intended to silence political opposition and secure his re-election.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the time has come to take stronger action than has been considered until now? Although we require no lectures from the Conservative party, is it not clear that the President of Zimbabwe is, like all political scoundrels, using the race card in every possible way to stay in power, and that the campaign that is being waged by the thugs has his every encouragement, which should be stated clearly? That is why some of us believe that the time has come for stronger action.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right about the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe and the President's wish to find a scapegoat. The economic situation in Zimbabwe has resulted in the majority of the population being unemployed, the total absence of foreign exchange, an inability to pay for essential imports such as energy and a very real danger later this year of food shortages. In those circumstances, President Mugabe is looking for someone other than himself to blame. We would not rule out any credible step that would be responsible and would have a realistic chance of changing opinion and policies in Zimbabwe. However, we should also ensure that any step we take is clearly consistent with our message to the people of Zimbabwe: that we are on their side and that we have a common enemy in Mugabe.

Mr. Francis Maude: I strongly agree with what the Foreign Secretary just said. It is a regime that


has declared war on its own people in a cynical attempt to remain in power. It is important that any steps that we take are clearly directed against Mugabe and the wretched henchmen who sustain him in power. Given that he has now made it clear that he is unwilling to treat with the Commonwealth mission, which is attempting to go there to talk to him, is it not absolutely clear that the time for quiet diplomacy has long gone? Is it not intolerable that at this autumn's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, Mugabe might be allowed the yet further propaganda coup that would follow from his being allowed to strut his stuff there? Is it not now urgent to take steps to begin the process of suspending his wretched regime from the Commonwealth?

Mr. Cook: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement of what I just said, but I have said it every month for the past 12 months and I have said it not only here, but in Brussels, within the Commonwealth and in New York. That has certainly not been quiet diplomacy, as the right hon. Gentleman claimed.
On the Commonwealth, I warned when we gave our commitment to the mission last month that we would be preparing advice for the Commonwealth Heads of Government when we meet at the end of this year. That is the only body that can take a decision on the suspension of Zimbabwe. If Zimbabwe continues to isolate itself by refusing to deal with the mechanisms of the Commonwealth, the Heads of Government must take that factor into account this coming autumn.
As I said to the right hon. Gentleman at the previous Foreign Office Question Time, one of the most practical differences that we made during the past 12 months was to get Commonwealth observers into the parliamentary election. They were warmly welcomed by the Zimbabwean Opposition for inhibiting the worst excesses of Mugabe's thugs. One consequence of suspending Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth would be that we would be unable to send Commonwealth observers for the presidential elections early next year—the only person in Zimbabwe who would welcome that is President Mugabe himself.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Today is May day. In Zimbabwe, the trade unions are trying to celebrate international workers' day. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deplorable that peaceful trade union activity in Zimbabwe is subject to intimidation and threat by forces supporting the Government of President Mugabe?

Mr. Cook: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The trade union movement is one of the areas where there is strength of criticism of President Mugabe and it has, therefore, attracted violent intimidation in recent weeks. I say to the Government of Zimbabwe, to President Mugabe and to all the other Ministers—especially the Minister of Justice—that we shall all be watching closely the trial of Morgan Tsvangirai when he appears before the court.

Oral Answers to Questions — Macedonia

8.

Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the situation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [158615]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I visited Macedonia last month, where I met the President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. I also visited Tetevo, where I met the leaders of the Albanian parties. I raised Macedonia during my visit last week to Kosovo, where I received assurances from the leaders of all political parties of their support for the integrity of the borders of Macedonia.
We fully support Macedonia as a multi-ethnic democracy, and we congratulate it on being the first country in the region to sign a stabilisation agreement with the European Union. However, we continue to press the Government of Macedonia further to strengthen their society by tackling the discrimination that is felt by the Albanian minority.
The whole House will wish to deplore the recent ambush that killed eight Macedonian soldiers and to express our condolences to their families. We are determined to work with the Government of Macedonia to defeat both the terrorists and their poisonous message that Albanians and Slavs cannot live at peace in the same single state.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is it not critical that the international community does everything that it can to prevent the importation of terrorism and instability to Macedonia? To that end, will he reconsider the point that I put to him on 27 March: that there is a need for some sort of force similar to UNPREDEP to protect the borders of Macedonia? Secondly, will he give the House his assessment of the consistency and coherence of different elements of KFOR in their approach to disarming the former KLA, and when does he think that that process will be completed?

Mr. Cook: While I was in Kosovo, I discussed the proposals for new anti-terrorist laws made by UNMIK. I am pleased to say that those proposals are now well developed. I hope that they will be in place soon and that they will provide a basis for longer detention of the type that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
On the question of Macedonia, I stress to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we are doing a lot on the Kosovo side of the border. Indeed, British troops have been involved, interdicting terrorists and trying to make sure that we stop those who return from Macedonia having carried out terrorism. We remain committed to ensuring that that task continues and that there is a strong intelligence link-up with the army of Macedonia to make sure that together we are successful in beating the terrorists.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is not the real agenda for those KLA terrorists a greater Albania? It has nothing to do with the extension of the Albanian language. Having ethnically cleansed Kosovo of almost all the minorities, the KLA's murderous extension into Macedonia is the real threat to peace in the Balkans. When will the Government and the west stop having tea with the likes of Thaci and Agim Ceku and start arresting them? They are the ringleaders, and until they go there will be no peace in the Balkans.

Mr. Cook: I would repeat to my hon. Friend what I told the House last month, when I made a statement on


Macedonia: in the Balkans, we have managed to halt any plans to achieve a greater Croatia or a greater Serbia, and there is no place on the map of the Balkans for a greater Albania either. That is the message that I firmly expressed in Kosovo and Macedonia, where I said that the borders of Kosovo had been set and that the era in which borders can be redrawn in the Balkans in blood is gone and past. However, I tell my hon. Friend that if we had not acted in the way that we did in Kosovo—if we had allowed Milosevic to emerge a hero and a victor from Kosovo—Milosevic would still be in power, not, as he currently is, in prison.

Sir David Madel: Is it the Government's view that more NATO troops are now needed properly to police the Macedonia-Kosovo border?

Mr. Cook: No, that is not the Government's view. We have always made it clear that if we receive a request from NATO on a decision in which we have participated, we will, of course, consider it, but we are urging all members of the KFOR team to show the same flexibility as the British contribution in being willing to go where the command of KFOR believes there is a requirement for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — EU (Enlargement)

Mr. Owen Paterson: When he next plans to meet representatives of the Government of Belgium to discuss their plans for the enlargement of the EU. [158616]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make statement on the development of the agenda for the forthcoming Belgian presidency of the European Council with regard to enlargement. [158620]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Belgian Foreign Minister will be in London next month for talks on the forthcoming Belgian presidency.
We are pleased with the new momentum in the enlargement process under the Swedish presidency. I warmly welcome the commitment of the Belgian Prime Minister in Budapest that enlargement will remain at the top of the agenda during the Belgian presidency.
Britain is widely recognised throughout the candidate countries as a champion of their membership. That is why we are keen to ratify the treaty of Nice. We would be able to do so more quickly if the official Opposition also agreed to ratify a treaty without which enlargement cannot happen.

Mr. Paterson: Enlargement cannot happen without effective, radical reform of the common agricultural policy. It was a humiliating indictment of the Foreign Secretary that that issue was not even discussed at Nice. When he meets the Belgians next month, what are the chances of his persuading them seriously to discuss radical reform of the CAP and its completion during their presidency?

Mr. Cook: As you, Mr. Speaker, will recall, we have been up and down this red herring so many times that I

weary the House by repeating it. The fact of the matter is that we did carry through a reform of the CAP in Berlin—a much more far-reaching reform than was ever secured by Opposition Members—which has saved every British household £94 a year on its food bill. Yes, we would like to go further—of course, we would, but that does not require a treaty change; it requires the policy change that the EU will be obliged to face up to when we consider the next financial setting.
The hon. Gentleman has to come clean. He is, I understand, a leading member of the British-Czech and Slovak group. Next time he meets those who come from the Czech Republic or from Slovakia, he will have to be honest with them about whether he will stand in the way of a treaty that is essential to their membership of the EU, and it would be helpful to them if he were to tell the House now. Will he or will he not back the treaty that they want to be passed?

Mr. Waterson: Is there not a real danger that, with the integrationist agenda of the Belgian Government, enlargement will take second place under their presidency? Is not that concern added to by the latest plans of the German Chancellor for a European Government? Is not it as plain as a pikestaff to everyone except the Government that an enlarged Europe needs more flexibility, not closer political integration?

Mr. Cook: On the views of the Prime Minister of Belgium, I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said in Budapest—that enlargement will be at the top of our agenda. I would rather listen to what the Prime Minister of Belgium says about his priorities than to the hon. Gentleman.
On the paper from the SPD, which was endorsed by Chancellor Schröder, if the hon. Gentleman ever gets round to reading it, he will find much in it with which he agrees, such as the commitment to combat the creeping transfer of competencies to the EU, or the need to repatriate the competencies that are better exercised by national Governments. Of course, there are some things in it with which neither he nor I would agree, but we cannot call for a wide-ranging Europe-wide debate and then insist that everything said in it is something that we agree with.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Secretary of State agree that enlargement of the EU will genuinely be impossible without the endorsement of the Nice treaty? The Conservative party simultaneously tries to argue against the Nice treaty and to support enlargement, but is not the reality that Conservative Members know that they will not have to resolve that contradiction because they will not be in government for the foreseeable future?

Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend's comment about the centrality of the treaty of Nice to enlargement. Indeed, the Foreign Minister of Poland, Mr. Bartoszewski, and I wrote a joint article that was published here and in Poland. It says:
The treaty is a precondition for enlargement—unless it is ratified, enlargement cannot happen.


Those are not just my views; they are the views of the Foreign Minister of Poland. I am sure that, when the time comes, many Polish communities around Britain will weigh those words carefully at the ballot box.

Mr. Denzil Davies: When the Government come to consider the five economic tests on whether to join the single currency, is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House whether the effect of enlargement on the euro area and, in particular, on the value of the single currency will be taken into account?

Mr. Cook: Of course, all factors will be taken into account. However, I do not anticipate any of the current candidates being within the eurozone in the time scale that his question requires.

Mr. John Redwood: Is the Foreign Secretary seriously suggesting that there needs to be no further reform of the CAP for enlargement to take place? Is not the truth of the matter that it would break the bank if enlargement proceeded on the current basis? When will he debate proper reform of the CAP, and when will he announce how much extra it will cost to bring in the new member states? When will he reform the CAP to provide better animal welfare than we have seen in recent months in this country?

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman really should brush up on the history of the recent negotiations. If he does, he will find that the decision that we took at Berlin on the current financial perspective is explicit. Within it, sufficient room is provided for enlargement to go ahead. Before he shakes his head, when he claims that we cannot afford enlargement, he should remember that he supports all the forces of reaction on the continent that want to oppose it. The money is there and we should not pretend that it is not.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has repeatedly said in the Chamber that Turkey's membership of the EU is conditional on the improvement of human rights in that country? Will he comment on the fact that 20 hunger strikers have died in the past few weeks, that hundreds of other prisoners are on hunger strike and that Turkish MPs, such as Leyla Zana, are serving 15 years in prison for using a few words of the Kurdish language? Will he encourage the EU presidency to be tough on these issues so as to help people in the Turkish Government and the Turkish prison service who are attempting to improve the situation?

Mr. Cook: I have no problem at all in saying to my hon. Friend that political reform, improvement in human rights and respect for ethnic minorities are conditions of Turkey proceeding with its application for membership of the European Union. Indeed, we explicitly agreed at Helsinki that negotiations would start only once Turkey had met the criteria on human rights and the treatment of ethnic minorities. I agree with my hon. Friend that Turkey has a long way to go, but those who are most active on human rights in Turkey also tend to be the very people who most want Turkey to continue with its integration in

the European structures. They see that as the strongest lever for reform, and I do not suggest that we should take it away from those who are trying to improve human rights in Turkey.

Mr. Richard Spring: When the right hon. Gentleman discusses enlargement, will he agree that the alienation of so many in the EU has much to do with the remoteness of its institutions and its lack of accountability? Does he not agree that the way to reinvigorate the relationship and make enlargement easier is not by further centralisation but by enhancing the role of democratically elected and accountable national Parliaments?

Mr. Cook: I am very pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's support for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's proposals for an institutional link with national Parliaments, which would provide a second Chamber in the European Parliament. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to supporting my right hon. Friend's proposal. As I asked the hon. Gentleman last month—we still have had no reply—whether the Conservative party is really to pose as a supporter of enlargement, why can it not tell us that it will support the treaty of Nice, which is essential for enlargement to proceed?

Oral Answers to Questions — Conflict Diamonds

Mr. Brian White: If he will report on developments in controlling the sale of conflict diamonds. [158618]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am pleased to confirm that I led an Adjournment debate on behalf of the Government in the House on 26 April, reporting on national and international developments in controlling the sale of conflict diamonds. The United Kingdom has played a prominent role throughout in supporting the UN Security Council resolutions and the Kimberley process.

Mr. White: Given that the UN global policy forum produced a report last December that set out not only the smuggling routes, but the names of the brokers, dealers and cutters involved in the trade, will my hon. Friend assure me that the global certification scheme, on which the Government are working, will not get bogged down? Will he also give an idea of the time scale, because each day's delay means that more people die needlessly?

Mr. Wilson: I can assure my hon. Friend of the Government's complete commitment to see the process through to the end. Useful progress was made at meetings in Brussels last week. It is vital to involve Governments in the producer states as well as the industry and countries such as Britain, which are central to the trade. Everyone is working together to produce a scheme. At the same time, it is important to remember that only 3 or 4 per cent. of diamonds come through illegal channels. Nothing should be done to damage the legal trade because diamonds are very important to producer countries, especially in southern Africa.

Points of Order

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you prior notice. You will no doubt have seen early-day motion 619 and press reports about the proposed merger of the Halifax bank and the Bank of Scotland. If those reports are to be believed, the Halifax headquarters will move to Edinburgh, even though it is a much larger bank. The Halifax is hugely important to my town, from which it takes its name. It is Yorkshire's premier financial institution and Britain's biggest mortgage lender. It would be a devastating blow for my town and the Yorkshire region if the headquarters were to relocate. Has a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry notified you that a statement will be made on that important issue?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach from any Minister on that matter.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, there are a number of protests today, not only in London, but in more than 1,000 general practitioners' surgeries throughout the United Kingdom at the Government's inability to deliver their promises on health. Are you as surprised as I am that the Secretary of State for Health has not made a request—or perhaps he has—to make a statement to the House today?

Mr. Speaker: After 22 years in the House, I am never surprised.

Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the revelation on this morning's edition of the "Today" programme that the Ministry of Defence is facing difficult choices between retaining our aircraft carrier programme or a large chunk of the Army, have you received an application to make a statement on that matter?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach from any Minister.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that the serious issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is worthy of further consideration? The revelation has been lent some credibility by the response of the Minister for the Armed Forces earlier today, who confirmed that difficult decisions have to be made. Given that there is not another session of Defence questions before the general election, is it not appropriate for a Defence Minister to be called to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know when the general election will be announced.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said in response to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that no Minister has contacted you to make a statement on the possible merger of the Bank of Scotland and the Halifax Group plc—in which, by the way, I have a small investment.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Soames: In which one?

Mr. Winterton: The Halifax.
The hon. Lady made an important point. Bearing in mind that thousands of jobs could be at stake at the Halifax and in Yorkshire, and that the Government send Ministers to this place to make statements when jobs are at risk, are you, Mr. Speaker, able to bring pressure on them to make a statement on a matter that is crucial to Halifax, Yorkshire, England and Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: I have no desire to see anyone lose his job, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) know their way around the Order Paper, and they know how to get a Minister to the Dispatch Box to give an account of his or her stewardship of the matter.

Transport of Farm Animals

Dr. Nick Palmer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the distance that farm animals may be transported in any one-week period.
The Bill will do three things: it will reduce animal suffering, it will lower the risk of epidemics and it will restore the market for local abattoirs. A few weeks ago, a senior official of the National Farmers Union in Nottinghamshire said to me that not only politicians but even farmers have learned a great deal about the farming industry in recent weeks. One of the most startling facts that we have all learned is that more than 1 million sheep movements were made, many right across the country, in the days after the first infection of foot and mouth disease. Why so many, and why so far?
The first reason is retailers' insistence that farmers use specified abattoirs. It is not generally realised that many of Britain's big retailers require suppliers to use specific abattoirs, even if they are on the opposite side of the country. If farmers wish to sell to them, they are forced to transport their animals the necessary distance for the convenience of the retailer.
Secondly, there is a large number of middlemen who buy animals speculatively at markets and move them from one market to another, looking for a better price. We can imagine the stress of animals packed into transporters for day after day as the dealer hunts his profit. I am not against profit, but we can reasonably ask ourselves whether that activity, with its cost in animal suffering and human risk, is producing anything worth while. Thirdly, price competition lures farmers into sending their animals across the country to make a marginal saving, even when a local abattoir is still available.
The Bill will empower the Secretary of State to limit the total frequency, time or distance that each animal can travel in any one week. The effects would be to inhibit

the trade of middlemen who repeatedly move the same animals and to prevent the longest journeys to abattoirs. Local abattoirs would regain their natural markets, the stress to animals would be substantially reduced and the danger of new epidemics would be lessened. Similar proposals have been made by the Swedish and German Governments at European Union level following studies showing that 10 per cent. of animals transported across Europe are dead on arrival from stress or other causes. I hope that the Bill will promote a readiness in Britain to welcome such moves.
We have a great tradition in Britain of cheap food, and that has done a great deal to promote the interests of the people of the country. However, it is time to consider whether that is necessary in its current absolute form. What is the real price that we are paying? It is an increased risk of epidemics that cost Britain billions when they occur and the suffering of animals, which consumers, when asked, say that they are not seriously willing to accept. The real price is too high.
We must accept that the Bill would increase the price of meat—I estimate that it would do so by 5 per cent. A piece of meat now costing£2 would therefore cost an extra 10p. I have a 10p with me—the price of saving it is a great deal of suffering for animals and an increased risk of epidemics that cost all of us billions of pounds. With the Bill, I should like to invest that 10p in higher standards for the animals' sake and for Britain's sake. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. David Winnick, Jane Griffiths and Mr. Mark Todd.

TRANSPORT OF FARM ANIMALS

Dr. Nick Palmer accordingly presented a Bill to limit the distance that farm animals may be transported in any one-week period: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 June, and to be printed [Bill 90].

Business of the House

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): I beg to move,
That—

(1) at the sitting on 2nd May the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Regulatory Reform not later than Seven o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendment selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and
(2) if proceedings on any such Motion have not been completed before Seven o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.

The motion is self-explanatory and provides that the draft Standing Orders cannot be talked out by requiring that the Question be put at seven o'clock. It protects the rights of the House by ensuring that amendments selected by the Speaker can be put at the end of debate and that if Divisions occur after 7 pm, the time for private business is not reduced.
Such business motions have been standard under this Administration and the previous one. The debate on the first Standing Orders on deregulation orders was similarly limited to their concluding
not later than two hours after their commencement
by the previous Administration in 1994. The fact that the business will be followed by private business, which should start at 7 pm, or shortly after, makes such a formulation inappropriate on this occasion.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: First, so far as I am aware, there was no ostensible reason for Ministers to resort to the necessity of constraining debate tomorrow on that basis.
Tomorrow's debate is important and I shall not prejudge any issues that may arise then. However, as the Minister knows perfectly well, the comparison with orders made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 is not comprehensive, as that Act dealt with exceptional powers, and the super-affirmative procedure was intended for a particular purpose. By contrast, the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, as we can already see—and as we shall no doubt discuss tomorrow—provides a power that has a much wider application and that can be used in a far greater range of circumstances. Clearly, Ministers are seeking to use that legislative procedure in a range of circumstances, as shown by the consultation papers that have already been issued.
It is important that the House should examine the procedure under which such orders are to be scrutinised. I must confess that I am surprised by the Minister's contention that the motion is necessary to avoid such debate being talked out. I share entirely the Minister's view that it is important to protect the subsequent private business tomorrow, but I have no reason to suppose that my hon. Friends in the Opposition do not intend to see it through.

Mr. Eric Forth: I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that if the motion had

not been moved, we would have the debate on regulatory reform, which would be interrupted at 7 o'clock. Private business would take place from 7 o'clock to 10 o'clock, and we would then resume debate on regulatory reform. There is no question of that debate being at risk; as I understand it, it is protected by the existing procedures of the House.

Mr. Lansley: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. As always, I should have deferred to him in such matters of parliamentary procedure, and I am sure that he is right. There is no question of the subsequent private business being imperilled. However, it may prove necessary for debate to continue in order to scrutinise the procedure, which is different from that which applies to orders made under the 1994 Act, and a range of additional factors will have to be taken into account by the relevant Committee.

Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lansley: Yes, but then I must make my remaining one or two points.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because he is, I imagine, being his usual restrained and gentlemanly self. Will he nevertheless confirm that the Government's intended circumscription of debate on the orders represents nothing more than a fig-leaf to cover their embarrassment about the fact that they were woefully short of Back Benchers who were ready to speak on the Bill?

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As many hon. Members will recall, he was an assiduous attender in the House during consideration of the 2001 Act on Report and Third Reading. He knows that there was a signal lack of support expressed in speeches from the Government side, although I suspect that, in at least one example, the amendments that we tabled would have been widely supported by Labour Members had they had the chance and the discretion to provide such support.
As we are so close to consideration of tomorrow's business, I am surprised that the Minister did not take the opportunity to assure the House that the time specified on the Order Paper will not be further reduced by the making of ministerial statements, which would have a bearing on the time available for discussing the orders. Therefore, we are considering the motion despite being ignorant of the extent to which time will genuinely be available, and I regret that the Minister did not further inform us on that point.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to express my concern about the motion, which, as I understand it, will have two consequences: first, debate on the motion in the name of the Leader of the House must be concluded by 7 o'clock and, secondly, debate on the private business will be limited to three hours. I regret that the motion will impose such restrictions on both items of business.
I begin by discussing the Deregulation Committee, which is the matter that the Leader of the House will deal with tomorrow. We must deal with whether the motion before us provides the House with sufficient time to discuss that business. I do not believe that it does.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made an important point about business statements and other interruptions. If the Question has to be put at 7 o'clock, as I understand it has, and if there are one or more statements, as there may well be, time will be taken up and the period available for debate will be extraordinarily limited. In some examples, that does not matter, but in the example of the business to be discussed tomorrow, it does, because we are to set up a Select Committee.
It is a good thing that we are establishing a Select Committee. However, whenever one is involved in such a matter, questions both particular and general have to be addressed, and it is right that there should be proper time available in which to address them. First, who will be responsible for selecting its members? It could take a long time properly to debate that matter, because my hon. and right hon. Friends may want to point out that Members of the House more generally should be involved in that selection.
There is absolutely no merit in choosing members of a Select Committee if the exercise of that choice is confined to the usual channels. While the hands may be safe, they may not reflect majority opinion, and we need ample time in which to express our anxieties about the way in which Select Committee members are chosen. There will be an opportunity for us to do so tomorrow, so I am extremely sorry that we are confining the debate and that hon. Members from all parties will have only a limited opportunity to express their anxieties about the way in which Select Committees are chosen.
The chairmanship of Select Committees is also a concern. I want them to be as free as possible of party manipulation, so that they can enhance the independence of the House. I think that we need a ample time tomorrow to discuss in detail how we can choose Chairmen who fully and properly reflect the House, who are not to be regarded by the Government as safe pairs of hands and who will supervise the Executive.
The Select Committee reports are a further issue. The motion to be discussed tomorrow sets out requirements on such reports, but I cannot find in it any obligation for the Government to provide time in the House to discuss them. I suspect that that is a matter of concern not only to me, but to other hon. Members who want to ensure that the reports are fully and properly debated. Tomorrow's motion provides an opportunity to raise and ventilate those matters, so I very much regret that time is to be constricted.
The private business is protected in the sense that three hours will be devoted to it. That is good news as far as it goes, but that is not very far. The City of London (Ward Elections) Bill is a private Bill that has been brought before the House on many occasions, and its progress has been frustrated many times by Labour Members. I do not complain about that, as hon. Members are perfectly entitled to express their opposition to such Bills. I have done so myself and I make no complaint about it. However, if we confine a debate on a Bill that is of considerable importance to the City of London, we must bear in mind that that will prevent it from ever being enacted.
I think that the House needs a greater opportunity to discuss and consider private business. The motion should provide more than three hours of debate. I regret that it

does not do so, because that time is not nearly long enough. If we confine the debate, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill will never make progress. Let us be clear: its passage will have been frustrated by Labour Members. I do not object to the process, provided that we know that it is happening and that no hypocrisy is involved.

Mr. Bercow: I do not cavil at anything that my right hon. and learned Friend says, but does he agree that the proposed truncation of debate is especially inappropriate and, I would go so far as to say, tasteless, as we have just had an Easter recess, as we are about to take Monday off for ourselves and as another event is likely to intercede before long? Should not hon. Members be prepared to do a little work?

Mr. Hogg: That is a telling intervention, but I am entitled to make another comment: this Parliament could run for another year. We could take all the time in the world to discuss the business, but for particular reasons—I am bound to say that I think that they have nothing to do with national interests—the Prime Minister has decided to call a general election 12 months early. We are entitled to ask why. I strongly suspect that he thinks that his electoral lead—if he has one—will be frittered away. That does him no credit and it tells us an awful lot about the way in which the Government operate.
I know that the motion is not earth shattering, but by confining the debate the Government are shutting out the House from an ability properly to discuss important questions about Select Committees, both in particular—I refer to the Select Committee on Deregulation—and in general, and are ensuring that important private business will not make progress. I regret both of those things.

Mr. Eric Forth: I echo the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). As the debate progresses, the motion appears increasingly otiose. As I said in my intervention, in the normal course of events, we would first discuss the motion. If our discussion did not conclude, it would be interrupted at 7 pm. Private business would be tackled between 7 pm and 10 pm, and we would resume the debate on the motion after 10 pm. That gives us an inkling of what the Government are up to and what they fear.
The Government are paranoid about the House of Commons doing anything after 10 pm. I understand that; the delicate babes on the Labour Benches do not want to be here late. They find it difficult to concentrate for long and objectionable to be here after 10 pm. A debate on that should properly be held at another time. By tabling the motion, the Government aim for the usual regrettable combination of truncating debate and dismissing hon. Members as early as possible, thus minimising Government embarrassment. As long as we recognise that, we can take a proper view of the matter.
By restricting time for the debate on the Standing Orders to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, we will not only limit the possibility of debating my modest amendments, if they are selected. Such action has wider implications. For example, should we simply endorse the existence of a Select Committee, albeit in a slightly different form? Is not it time to debate whether the number of Select Committees is already excessive?
There are far too many Committees, and the number only increases. I cannot remember when we last did away with a Select Committee. In our eagerness to create more chairmanships and travelling opportunities for colleagues, we miss the point of Select Committees, which are supposed to be focused, serious and serve some parliamentary or wider purpose. The Government, as ever nowadays, are trying to restrict the amount of time for debate. You, Mr. Speaker, and other occupants of the Chair would not deny us the opportunity to make the odd passing reference to the number of Committees and whether they are appropriate. I appreciate that the motion does not increase that number, but endorses and slightly changes the number.
The motion states that you, Mr. Speaker,
shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett".
I do not know whether that is a broad hint that the Leader of the House might slip a few more motions on to the Order Paper between now and tomorrow. The motion allows for that. If that happens, we are being asked to endorse limited debating time without knowing the total business before us. That is disturbing.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to guarantee that no further motions in the name of the Leader of the House will be tabled for tomorrow? I cannot understand the reason for the wording unless it is to allow some dubious business to be surreptitiously slipped in at the last minute and encompassed by the restricted time that has been allowed for the business.
The motion bears the hallmarks of the Government and their attitude to the House. It is necessary only if one accepts two propositions, which I shall outline. First, it is desirable, nay, essential to restrict debate on all matters so that the Government are embarrassed as little as possible and their delicate supporters get to go home early. Secondly, good, long-standing arrangements that are well understood in the House must be disturbed. The Parliamentary Secretary has not explained the reason for that.
We are left with a dilemma: do we accept unnecessary nonsense and roll over yet again?

Mr. Bercow: In the absence of any helpful response from the Parliamentary Secretary on the Government's intentions tomorrow, would not it be instructive for the House to hear either from its Deputy Leader, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, or from the Deputy Chief Whip, either of whom would be in an ideal position to advise the House as to exactly what the Government have got up their sleeve?

Mr. Forth: If this debate were to allow the Government Deputy Chief Whip the opportunity to come and enlighten us as to the darkest innermost thoughts of the Government, that would be a breakthrough indeed. I am not overly optimistic that that will happen, although the right hon. Gentleman looks remarkably relaxed and cheerful about the prospects surrounding the motion. He obviously feels that he has the situation under control, as well he might.
The difficulty here—as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), with his usual perception, readily identified—is that the Government are tightening

their grip on the House and on parliamentary procedure in such a way as to make meaningful debate, meaningful opposition and meaningful holding of the Government to account and questioning of their actions next to impossible. This is yet another small but significant example of that phenomenon.
All in all, this is another sad little moment for the House and for Parliament. I somewhat regret that my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench do not seem inclined to oppose the motion or divide the House on it. At this stage, there is probably not much point in doing that, although I regret to say that. As we seem to be heading towards an unnecessarily early general election, it would appear that fewer and fewer people are concerned about what happens here. However, those of us who continue to be concerned will continue to have our tuppence worth whenever possible, and await events.

Mr. Stringer: I shall be extremely brief, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) took the debate much wider than the terms on the Order Paper.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I know what the hon. Gentleman's point of order will be, but I shall let him speak.

Mr. Bercow: I just want to be sure. I might have misheard what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but I understood him distinctly, at the start of his oration, to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham had gone well beyond the terms of the motion. That, of course, is impossible, is it not, Mr. Speaker? Had they done so, you would have been on your feet rebuking them.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Minister was expressing an opinion. The best thing to say about the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is that they were borderline cases.

Mr. Stringer: Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.
I was surprised when the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) said that there would be insufficient time to deal with the change from a Deregulation Committee to a Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee. He will remember from the many debates that we had during the passage of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 that we recognised that the debate on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 had been very contentious and highly emotional. It was opposed by the Labour party on three-line Whips. At the end of that process, when a similar debate to today's arose in the House, Conservative Members, who then formed the Government, allowed a full two hours debate for a brand new procedure—the super-affirmative procedure—which has now become accepted by both sides of the House as a procedure that works on consensus.
The Government are proposing that the terms of reference for the Select Committee be changed along the lines originally given for the Deregulation Committee, to take account of the fact that we now have a Regulatory Reform Act. That is changing something in detail. Indeed, there is a wider power in that Act, but there are also greater hurdles to be overcome before a regulatory reform order is passed.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister please respond to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked him? It related to the fact that the motion is drawn in such terms as to apply to any motion relating to regulatory reform that might be before the House. Will the Minister be good enough to give a guarantee that the only motion relating to regulatory reform to be discussed will be the one now on the Order Paper?

Mr. Stringer: The motion will clearly relate to the Regulatory Reform Act and the establishment of a new Select Committee with extended terms of reference.
I ask the House to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That—

(1) at the sitting on 2nd May the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Regulatory Reform not later than Seven o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendment selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and
(2) if proceedings on any such Motion have not been completed before Seven o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon

Orders of the Day — Social Security Fraud Bill

As amended in the Committee, considered.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we begin proceedings on the Bill, may I extend orally an apology that I gave the House yesterday in a written answer? I repeated an error in a written answer at Question Time, on the Floor of the House, and I feel that I should correct both answers.
I gave a written answer yesterday, which can be found in column 518W of Hansard, relating to departmental advertising. Towards the end of the answer, I corrected a written answer that I had given on 7 March to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), which can be found in column 233W. I have also written a long letter to the hon. Gentleman, explaining how that came about. The letter, which is long and convoluted, has been placed in the Library.
During Social Security questions on 2 April—this can be found in column 11—I effectively repeated the same error relating to advertising expenditure. It is only proper, according to the terms of the code of conduct, for the error to be corrected and apologised for in both written and oral form, and I do so now. There was certainly no intention to mislead the House; I am as annoyed about this as anyone else, and I am glad to have been able to set th+ record straight both in writing and orally.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

New Clause 2

DISCLOSURE OF BENEFIT DETAILS

'The Secretary of State may require, by amending any benefit application form, that all benefit applicants shall give consent in writing, as a condition of receiving benefit, to the provision of some or all of their benefit details by an authorised officer to—

(a) any person falling within section 109B(2A) of the Administration Act; and
(b) any other person whose principal duty s to counter fraud;

provided that the benefit recipient has a conviction for fraud or the officer has reasonable grounds for belief that the benefit recipient may be committing, or intending to commit, fraud.'.

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
The new clause is billed as "Disclosure of benefit details", but it could have been entitled "Joining CIFAS"—or indeed, given its genesis, termed the "wish list" of the Minister of State, who has expressed the wish that the Government could join the credit industry fraud avoidance system.
Although I doubt that any Member present does not know what CIFAS is and who belongs to it, I shall say a brief word about it before trying to explain what the new clause does. CIFAS is a fraud avoidance system, which, as I shall demonstrate later, has proved effective. As we all now know that we can wear glasses safely, I shall put


mine on—they are not as expensive as some people's, but I hope that they are as effective—and read a list of the organisations that have voluntarily united to try to counter the fraud that their firms and other bodies suffer. The membership of CIFAS includes banks, building societies, insurance companies, credit card companies, share dealers and finance houses. The roll call includes more than just representatives of what we normally think of as the traditional finance industry.
The aim of CIFAS is to build up a register of those suspected of, or known to be, committing fraud against members and, therefore, against their customers and shareholders. What we must ask today is, "If this works so well for the private sector, do we not want the public sector to be fully involved in it?" CIFAS is about beating fraud and spreading the good practice that arises from attempts to beat it. Its latest press release could have been taken from any of the Green Papers that have been published during this Parliament on how best to go about protecting taxpayers' money.
Although in a previous debate on the Bill there was some questioning of the extent of social security fraud and how the total was arrived at, CIFAS has no problem working out what is saved in countering fraud. At its annual general meeting last week, it was able to register that about £203 million had been saved by member organisations as a result of their collective action—action not merely to protect each organisation itself from fraud, but to share information with other organisations, so that they are best equipped to counter fraud against them. Those who have had e-mails about last week's AGM or were there themselves know that the members reported that the fastest growing form of fraud is giving false identities. The position that the Department faces cannot be dissimilar.
In its response to the Bill, the private sector has welcomed the Government's attempt to get a better grip on countering fraud, but has expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the way in which they are approaching the issue. Although the Government talk about data sharing, the private sector views it as data raiding. The Government are not doing any sharing at all. They ask CIFAS and other organisations for information on what is known and on membership but return nothing in its place.
CIFAS and its members—the private sector—argue that while the Bill may be effective in shifting fraud around, it will be ineffective in countering fraud. The more successful the Government are in protecting taxpayers' money—something that we all wish to be pursued as effectively as possible—the greater the chance that the Bill will just push the fraudster out of the public sector and into the private sector.
There are costs for the private sector. The costs are, as required, listed in the Bill, although no one in the private sector believes that the cost will be limited to that level. New clause 2 attempts to fulfil the wish that the Minister expressed in a previous debate: that if we could join CIFAS, we would. The new clause would allow the Government to do precisely that.
One of the arguments that came up in that debate—it may or may not be advanced today—was that there was a difference between people claiming benefit and,

for example, people opening a bank account: people are free to open a bank account, but, if they are eligible, and particularly if they are poor, there is no freedom about drawing benefit. I wonder whether that argument holds because the Government are intent on moving benefit payments to banks. The checking that banks will do to ensure that they are not enrolling known fraudsters will involve all the people who currently do not have bank accounts, but whom the Government wish to persuade to open them, so that benefit payments can be made much more efficiently, cheaply and, we hope, with much less fraud. The major argument for there being something special—something ring-fenced—about drawing benefit that separates it from other activities that people voluntarily undertake and prevents the Government, on behalf of taxpayers, from joining CIFAS therefore falls to the ground.
I hope that when we have had our debate and the Minister replies, we will all be delighted and hear not only that he wishes to join, but that he has now, with the help of his colleagues, found a way of doing precisely that. It is clear to those of us who have visited CIFAS members—I know that he has been to some of those that I have visited to see how they operate—that they probably already have in place a more effective way of countering fraud or preventing fraudsters from entering the system than the Department has. That is not to denigrate the importance of what the Department does, but CIFAS membership would be another effective string to the Government's bow in helping to counter fraud. Given that the new clause has support on both sides of the House, I hope that the Government, who are serious about dealing with fraud, will take this opportunity—late as it is in the Bill's proceedings—to ensure that after the general election whoever forms the next Government will become a full member of CIFAS.
We should use CIFAS's techniques alongside our own in protecting taxpayers' money and show that we are not merely about raiding the private sector for information or trying to shift fraud from the public to the private sector. We should also demonstrate that we do not wish merely to shift fraud around, but to limit the amount of fraud committed.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It gives me great pleasure to support new clause 2, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I also thank the Minister of State for his fulsome apology, which was much appreciated.
In previous debates on the Bill in both Houses, an issue that arose time and again was the need to reduce fraud while ensuring that people's privacy is protected as much as possible. In fact, Conservatives regularly cited the concern of organisations such as Liberty, which many people would not expect from us. We did not raise CIFAS in Committee, partly because it had been raised in the other place. We were also told that one of the problems that the Government had with CIFAS was the potential for footprints to be left in the private sector's records. That appeared to be a good reason not to pursue the issue, and there were other fears, which may be further expressed later, that the broad nature of the inquiries that the public sector would need to make of the private sector would be invidious for the individual.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead explained the work of CIFAS so effectively that I need only say that I agree whole heartedly with his comments. It is a most effective organisation. It was the first in the world to be set up to try to eliminate private sector fraud in the financial sector in its broadest definition. From information supplied to me by CIFAS, it appears that in February the number of cases with which it had dealt had increased by 50 per cent. over the year before, so it is clearly gaining force as an effective organisation.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned that CIFAS had its annual general meeting last week at which a question was put to the Data Protection Commissioner, Mrs. France, that made me feel able to support the new clause. Mr. Peter Hurst, the executive director of CIFAS, told me that at the AGM, in response to a question from a senior executive in the insurance industry about why the Department of Social Security could not share information about identified frauds with members of CIFAS, Mrs. France said that she considered that to be possible, provided that it was approached in the right way—possibly making use of section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998. That section exempts crime prevention and prosecution of offenders. She went on to offer CIFAS members the assistance and involvement of her staff in any discussions about sharing such information to prevent fraud. I went so far as to track down section 29 of the 1998 Act and, as a non-lawyer, I would not challenge Mrs. France's conclusions.
There seems to be a good case for the Government to join CIFAS, having dealt with the concerns about footprints. We certainly support the right hon. Gentleman's new clause. As we did not debate it in Committee because of our concerns about footprints, we wish to have a vote so that it is on record that the official Opposition support the proposal for the Government to join CIFAS.

Mr. Steve Webb: This is one of those rare occasions when one listens with an open mind to the reasons for accepting a new clause. However, so far, I am not convinced about adding new clause 2 to the Bill. Perhaps I can describe my reactions to the new clause, and if I have misunderstood its purpose, I would be grateful for clarification.
My understanding is that under new clause 2, the Secretary of State could change all benefit forms and require, as a condition of payment of benefit, the person applying to give permission in writing. The permission would say that henceforth, whatever information had gone on that form—which could be very personal, such as income, who was living in the household and how many children they had—could be passed to anyone falling within section 109B(2A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That, as we know from the Bill, applies to a range of private sector organisations such as banks, the student loan company, the gas board, the water board, and so on. Do we want information that people put on their benefit forms—some of it sensitive—to be passed to those organisations?

Mr. Field: As I am anxious that no one in the coming general election campaign accuses the Liberal Democrats of being soft on fraud and soft on the causes of fraud, I should like to answer the question. One would have to have grounds to suspect that there was fraud. Names

would not necessarily be checked, because of false identities, but there would be a check on whether the address was being used.
If the hon. Gentleman has not yet had a chance to visit any of the organisations that are part of CIFAS, I hope that he will do so after the election. They would not have time to exchange all the information to which he refers. They want to know whether they have to be careful with a customer and whether they have to ask more questions. They merely check whether other organisations have also marked out that person. They have to think that there is something fishy about a claim and then check on the name and address. It is not a case of sharing all personal information. The system would collapse if all that information were transferred.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful for that intervention, although I am not entirely reassured by it. However, I shall pursue my point and will happily give way later.
The amendment refers to an authorised officer providing information to external organisations. In general, in the Bill, the authorised officers come from the Department of Social Security or the Benefits Agency. That is what I assumed was meant in this case.
I am puzzled about the sequence of events that would give rise to the exercise of the new clause. It says that the authorised officer—the person in the DSS—can give information to the third party provided, for example, that the benefit recipient has a conviction for fraud or the officer thinks that they might be intending to commit fraud.
Let us suppose that a bank is considering a loan application from someone. It would not know that that person was the subject, for example, of a fraud investigation by the DSS. Are we to assume that the authorised officer would initiate contact with these third parties? The bank could not make fishing telephone calls, to use our analogy, and would not know that there was a question mark over that person. Is the right hon. Member for Birkenhead proposing that when a bank has vague misgivings about a person applying for a loan it should ring DSS offices to ascertain whether an authorised officer has a concern about the person? If so, I am not clear how that process would work in practice.
If there is a reasonable suspicion that a person claiming benefit is committing fraud, what that person has put on the claim form can, in principle, be passed to external organisations. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no need for information on the benefit form to be passed on, but that would happen the second that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that a person had committed fraud. The information would cease to be confidential in the Department, and would be available to all the external organisations with which an applicant might have dealings. Even if an applicant were proven to be completely innocent, his or her personal details would already have been passed to the external organisations.
In the event that an applicant were convicted of fraud—and conviction is only one of the three categories specified in the new clause—it is perhaps arguable that other organisations would have a right to know details of a person's circumstances, as they would need to prevent any possibility of fraud against themselves. However, I do not see why suspicion of fraud should be a sufficient reason for people to lose their right to privacy. My worry


is that such provisions risk breaching the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. People suffer when privacy and confidentiality are lost. Passing on personal information is almost a punishment in itself, even if people are eventually found to be innocent.

Mr. Field: Part of me wishes that officers in the DSS had time to undertake such activities. I fear that life is much more pressured than that. I give the hon. Gentleman the example of a benefits applicant who puts on the benefits claim form a false national insurance number. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to check into that person a little more to ascertain whether there is a history of wrongdoing in other areas. The question is whether it is worth pursuing such matters with the private sector to eliminate possible frauds.

Mr. Webb: I apologise for being slightly dense, but the right hon. Gentleman gave the example of a person who puts a dodgy national insurance number on a benefits claim form. Is he saying that that would alert the authorities to the possibility that the person could not be trusted, and that the Benefits Agency should be proactive in contacting all the categories of people or organisation with whom the person might have had dealings? I presume that the agency would tell those people and organisations, "We've got a dodgy one here, keep an eye out," or, "If you've had any dealings with this applicant you might be about to get stitched up."

Mr. Field: Liberal Democrat Members may vote against the new clause, but the wish of the House is that the Government should have the power to get that information from the private sector. The new clause proposes that, to some extent, relevant information might move in the opposite direction.

Mr. Webb: The Government certainly can get information from the private sector to establish whether a person is committing benefit fraud, if there are reasonable grounds for that suspicion. Under the Bill, authorised officers of the Benefits Agency may obtain that information to verify—or otherwise—any suspicion that they might have about a claim. Under the new clause, authorised officers would not use information gained in that way only for internal purposes, but would pass it on to interested external organisations. Those organisations could not initiate the transfer of information, as they would not know that there was a suspicion of fraud.
I shall not drag this matter out. If a person has been successfully prosecuted, there might be a case for alerting other organisations to the fact. However, I am worried about alerting other organisations before anything is proved, especially if the person involved is found to be innocent in the end. I believe that private information given to the state should remain private, unless there is a good reason why it should not, and that suspicion is not a good enough reason. That is where I would draw the line.
4.30 pm
I mention in passing that in a written answer earlier this week the Minister of State told me that 15 per cent. of benefit recipients will not have their money paid into a

bank account even when the Government have finished the move to automated credit transfer. The Government's target is 85 per cent., not 100 per cent. Therefore, one in six benefit recipients will still not be subject to the sort of checks to which the Minister referred. It will not be universal that, in applying for a benefit, one is subject to all those checks. For a certain category of person, there would be additional checks, beyond those that they face at present.
While I understand the view of the private sector that the traffic is one way, the role of the public sector is special. The relationship between the individual and the state is different from that between the individual and the private sector. The information that we provide to the state should be treated with respect and privacy. For that reason, I cannot support the new clause.

Mr. Rooker: First, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), without the benefit of my written notes. The Government's objective is to pay all benefits by automated credit transfer. My written answer made it clear that in our public service agreement, by which we will be measured by 2005, the initial hurdle is 85 per cent. That does not mean that we will stop there, or that we expect to achieve only 85 per cent. Our objective will be to achieve more, but at that point in time the public service agreement that the Department has with the Treasury is to meet that benchmark. The transfer is taking place between 2003 and 2005 and it would be unreasonable to expect us to achieve 100 per cent. by 2005 in terms of that agreement. I do not want people to run away with the idea that we are writing off 15 per cent. of benefit claimants as regards ACT—far from it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will know from what I said on Second Reading and in Committee that, by and large, we are sympathetic to sharing information that we are able to share with the private sector to do a better job to help both sectors root out fraud. Fraud in the private sector is as bad as fraud in the public sector and it is important that the two sectors work in partnership.
The Government are taking statutory powers in the Bill to obtain information from the private sector. We cannot reciprocate by being members of CIFAS—the credit industry fraud avoidance system—for reasons that I have explained. I am not sure whether we could get the legal authority of the House to join CIFAS in a clause with the wording in my right hon. Friend's new clause 2.
The clause would give the Department carte blanche to release any information that it holds about claimants who are convicted or reasonably suspected of fraud. There is no restriction. Obviously, there has been correspondence and there have been parliamentary questions on the matter since the Bill was put before the House. I shall reiterate some of the issues and refer to the annual meeting of CIFAS, which has been mentioned.
We are constantly examining the data that may be released to the private sector and we are holding—and have held—discussions with that sector. However, there are legal considerations. I listened to the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Northavon. We need to distinguish between the bulk transfer of information and giving information on a case-by-case basis. Different rules apply, as will be apparent from my remarks. It is important to take on board that distinction.
We have never envisaged a complete exchange of information. The Department's legal advice remains that making entitlement to benefits conditional on claimants consenting to the release of their personal data would not constitute genuine consent because there is nowhere else to get the benefits if one does not consent and, therefore, we would have real trouble with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998, let alone human rights legislation. Claimants have no choice but to claim from the Department of Social Security.
We are trying to be helpful: by sharing with the private sector information that would be useful to it, but also by protecting information gathered about people who have no choice but to use the DSS. We have to strike a balance—the Bill is the striking of that balance. It is a modest step—although it could be seen as a major encroachment in some ways, so we are being extremely careful about its content. There will be no fishing expeditions and reasonable grounds will have to be given if it is thought that fraud might be being committed. That is crucial. All those checks and balances have been included, so in this Bill the new clause would be a step much, much too far.
We have to protect individuals and we want to assist the private sector. We take our data protection responsibilities very seriously indeed. We are discussing with the financial sector what information we can divulge without breaching those responsibilities. For example, we have been considering items such as information on people who have died. That is a matter of public record; if we have the information, we have stopped paying their pension. Sometimes the private sector does not know that a person has died and carries on paying an occupational pension, in which case fraud is obviously committed by other people.
We are looking at whether we can help with the verification of addresses when the DSS requires people to open a bank account. Information on stolen blank birth, marriage and death certificates is also under consideration, as are details of people convicted under the "two strikes" provisions. That matter was raised in Committee and we may debate it briefly later on.
The provisions are a deterrent that will not affect more than 500 people a year. "Two strikes" mean convictions in a court of law—in a public place; the proceedings are not secret and are not held behind closed doors, yet according to the legal advice that I have received, it is not currently possible for the DSS, which would know the names and addresses of the 500 people affected by "Two strikes and you're out", to pass that information to the private sector. That would not be possible and we have legal advice to that effect, yet the information is clearly in the public sector—diffused around the country—in various courts. However, the mere act of the DSS gathering such information and handing it over to a third party breaches the legal framework under which we operate and we are, therefore, still holding discussions on that.
We expect and hope to resolve outstanding legal and operational issues about information that we can share with the private sector by the end of this month—so the matter should not be dragged out. We do not want to drag it out because there is no incentive to do so. In any case, we need the good will of the private sector, even though we are taking statutory powers. Where we have the legal

authority to share information, we want to do so. Thus, it is in everybody's interest that we get on with that as quickly as possible.

Mrs. Lait: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when the Bill was published, the Data Protection Commissioner expressed significant reservations about it, although the right hon. Gentleman told us in Committee that she had subsequently withdrawn them. Was CIFAS part of the negotiations? Are the right hon. Gentleman or his officials holding discussions with the commissioner about section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998? The commissioner has given us to understand that that section covers the points made by the right hon. Gentleman and the legal advice that he has taken.

Mr. Rooker: The answer to the hon. Lady's first question is—to the best of my knowledge—no. There were no prior discussions with the commissioner when the Bill was being planned. That has now changed because, given that we have only heard reports of what was said at the annual meeting of CIFAS by the information commissioner, we have written to her to sound her out more fully on what she said and on the legal advice underpinning it. It is crucial that such legal advice is correct.
Obviously, I cannot state categorically what the commissioner said last week, because I was not present. I understand, via her office, that she was answering a question, but that she was referring to cases in which the private sector prosecutes an individual. In such a case, there may be scope for the DSS to give relevant information to the company concerned. We are happy to discuss that further with the commissioner, but she seems to be talking about providing information on a case-by-case basis, which is a wholly different matter from the bulk transfer of DSS information to the private sector.
We have discussed with the industry only information routinely issued in bulk, for which we have not found a legally workable solution, but I understand that the commissioner was discussing information provided on a case-by-case basis. So as long as there is no breach of the legal framework within which we work, such as the data protection legislation and other relevant statutes, clearly, we would seek to provide such information. However, we are seeking further and better particulars from my learned friends and others and to open a conversation with the data protection commissioner.
There is good will on both sides; we want to work in partnership with the private sector. This is not a criticism of the drafting of new clause 2, but it would represent a step too far if included in the Bill. Nevertheless, in the fight against fraud, the more we can transfer information, compatible with the protection of privacy and data protection legislation, the better for everyone all round. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead will not press new clause 2 to a Division.

Mr. Field: Even if I do not press new clause 2 to a Division, it appears that others may well do so. I am still slightly puzzled about what is meant by the quantity of information being exchanged. No one thinks that anyone is asking for bucket loads of information to come from the DSS into the private sector arbitrarily, without relating to any real problems. We are trying to locate information


on people who may be committing fraud against the taxpayer, who are probably committing fraud against the private sector as well. Indeed, we have said in previous debates that it is inconceivable that the biggest of all Government budgets is somehow immune from attack by fraudsters, as we know that smaller budgets are under attack in the private sector.
I do not wish, at this late hour, to wind up the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—the Liberal Democrat in this debate—but I shall provide the House with the information that, on 30 April of this year, the Government gave in their press release, headed, "DSS Assists in the Fight Against Crime", on the agreement that they have drawn up with the police. It states:
The revised DSS policy on disclosure is that all personal information held in social security records will continue to be regarded as confidential. Information will not normally be disclosed to third parties without the consent of the person concerned.
Then comes the key point:
However, information may be disclosed without consent to assist in the prevention or detection of crime or to aid the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
The notes to editors in the press release state that that would be done in trying to prevent vandalism. New clause 2 is about whether we are striking the right balance.

Mr. Rooker: I do not want to protract the debate, but we were talking about information given to the police. The memorandum of understanding between the Association of Chief Police Officers, the DSS and the Home Office deals with information given to the police, not to the private sector.

Mr. Field: I merely quoted the press release because the Liberal Democrats were understandably concerned that the information that must be supplied to claim benefits may be needed and could be handed over. The new clause is about trying to strike a balance in exchanging the information that would be of real value to the private and the public sectors. At present, the private sector feels that all the demands will be made one way, that it will bear most of the costs and that a major opportunity is being lost, not merely because, by sharing information, we could stop people moving from the public to the private side of fraud.
4.45 pm
Let us think ahead to the next Parliament and consider how we shall draw up measures to be more effective in countering fraud and other forms of unacceptable behaviour. Surely, there is a need to establish a means of exchanging information about criminal records, fraud against the Department of Social Security and fraud in the private sector. Once someone begins to behave in a way that is unacceptable to the community, all parts of the community should be able to pool their information to determine what sort of charge sheet should be drawn up against that individual.
Earlier in this Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested that police should have the powers to apprehend yobbos, take them to cashpoints and make them hand over a fine. If a yobbo were apprehended for bad behaviour in Birkenhead, one might find that that

person had also committed credit card fraud, mortgage fraud, housing benefit fraud and a few other frauds. Therefore, the different groups involved might wish to pursue collectively in the courts their case against that individual.
Once a person has behaved unacceptably, a general check should be available. Information could be collected and a collective charge—with the costs being shared between the public and private sectors—could be pursued. Although we cannot pursue that aim through an amendment to the Bill, my new clause is a modest measure that is designed to fulfil the wish of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. As the Opposition say that they will press the new clause to a Division, I will join them because it stands in my name.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 312.

Division No. 200]
[4.46 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Amess, David
Hammond, Philip


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hayes, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Heald, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul 
Horam, John


Blunt, Crispin
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hunter, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)



Burns, Simon
Key, Robert


Butterfill, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lansley, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Lidington, David


Collins, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cran, James
Loughton, Tim


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Luff, Peter


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Evans, Nigel
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Madel, Sir David


Fallon, Michael
Major, Rt Hon John


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Malins, Humfrey


Flight, Howard
Maples, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fox, Dr Liam
May, Mrs Theresa


Fraser, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Norman, Archie


Garnier, Edward
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gibb, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Page, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Paice, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paterson, Owen


Green, Damian
Pickles, Eric


Greenway, John
Prior, David


Grieve, Dominic
Randall, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Redwood, Rt Hon John






Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Trend, Michael


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tyrie, Andrew


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Walter, Robert


St Aubyn, Nick
Wells, Bowen


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Soames, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wilshire, David


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Streeter, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Swayne, Desmond



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. James Gray.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allan, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Coffey, Ms Ann



Coleman, Iain


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Colman, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin, John
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bailey, Adrian
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Corston, Jean


Battle, John
Cotter, Brian


Bayley, Hugh
Cousins, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Cranston, Ross


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Crausby, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Darvill, Keith


Benton, Joe
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Berry, Roger
Davidson, Ian


Betts, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blizzard, Bob
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David



Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradshaw, Ben
Dobbin, Jim


Brake, Tom
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Breed, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Doran, Frank


Browne, Desmond
Dowd, Jim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Drown, Ms Julia


Buck, Ms Karen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burnett, John
Efford, Clive


Burstow, Paul
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Butler, Mrs Christine
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek



Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Gapes, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Gardiner, Barry


Casale, Roger
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Caton, Martin
Gerrard, Neil


Cawsey, Ian
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chidgey, David
Gidley, Sandra


Clapham, Michael
Gilroy, Mrs Linda





Godman, Dr Norman A
McNamara, Kevin


Godsiff, Roger
McNulty, Tony


Goggins, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mallaber, Judy


Grocott, Bruce
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Martlew, Eric


Hanson, David
Merron, Gillian


Harvey, Nick
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mitchell, Austin


Hendrick, Mark
Moffatt, Laura


Hepburn, Stephen
Moore, Michael


Hesford, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hill, Keith
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hinchliffe, David



Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Hope, Phil
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Humble, Mrs Joan
Oaten, Mark


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Illsley, Eric
O'Hara, Eddie


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Neill, Martin


Jamieson, David
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pollard, Kerry


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pond, Chris


Joyce, Eric
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rammell, Bill


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rendel, David


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen



Lammy, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Laxton, Bob
Rogers, Allan


Lepper, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Roy, Frank


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ruane, Chris


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Joan


Livsey, Richard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Salter, Martin


Lock, David
Sanders, Adrian


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sarwar, Mohammad


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Sheerman, Barry


McFall, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Shipley, Ms Debra


McIsaac, Shona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis






Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Snape, Peter
Tynan, Bill


Soley, Clive
Vis, Dr Rudi


Southworth, Ms Helen
Walley, Ms Joan


Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Squire, Ms Rachel
Watts, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Webb, Steve


Steinberg, Gerry
White, Brian


Stevenson, George
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stringer, Graham
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wilson, Brian


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winnick, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Worthington, Tony


Temple—Morris, Peter
Wray, James


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy
Tellers for the Noes:


Todd, Mark
Mr. David Clelland and


Trickett, Jon
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

ADDITIONAL POWERS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION

Mrs. Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 11A, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
'(2BB) Prior to the exercise of the power conferred on an authorised officer to obtain information under this section, that officer shall obtain in writing the consent to carry out an investigation.
(2BC) Consent must be granted in writing or (if not in writing) in a manner that produces a record of its having been granted; and it must—

(a) describe the conduct and data in relation to which it is authorised; and
(b) specify the office, rank or position held by the person granting the authorisation.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
'(2BD) Requests for information made by authorised officers to any of the bodies falling within subsection (2A) shall be made through a central organisation, and a notice requiring data to be disclosed or to be obtained and disclosed—

(a) must be given in writing or (if not in writing) must be given in a manner that produces a record of its having been given;
(b) must describe the data to be obtained or disclosed under the notice;
(c) must specify the office, rank or position held by the person giving it; and
(d) must specify the manner in which any disclosure required by the notice is to be made.'.


No. 15, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
'(2G) A person to whom a notice is given under subsection (2A) above may, by notice in writing given to the authorised officer within thirty days after the date of the notice under that subsection, object to that notice on the ground that it would be onerous for him to comply with it; and if the matter is not resolved by agreement, it shall be referred to an official of seniority within the relevant department, who may confirm, vary or cancel that notice.'.
No. 16, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
'(2H) An authorised officer who gives a notice to a person under subsection (2A) above shall also give to that person a written summary of his reasons for applying for consent to the giving of the notice.'.
No. 19, in clause 2, page 6, line 48, at end insert—
'(8) In this section and in sections 109B and 109BA an 'authorised officer' means an individual holding such offices, ranks or positions with relevant public authorities as are prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State who is designated by the Secretary of State as an authorised officer.'.

Mrs. Lait: The amendments all deal with outstanding concerns about the Department's power to acquire information under the Bill. A number of amendments tabled in the House of Lords addressed some of the concerns that many organisations and companies have expressed, but concerns still remain about certain issues relating to fundamental aspects of the Bill. Amendment No. 11A deals with the lack of independent scrutiny of authorised officers' requests for information. From the outset, organisations as diverse as the British Bankers Association and Liberty have, for obvious reasons, expressed concern about the lack of independent consent from a higher authority to requests for information.
The BBA feels that an officer could convince himself that he had reasonable grounds when, in fact, he was acting on gut instinct or worse, as the system is used more, as a matter of routine. Liberty believes that the provision means that a rogue investigator cannot make inquiries about all and sundry. Therefore, there are still concerns about the lack of an independent check, which are strengthened by the existence in the Taxes Management Act 1970 of a procedure, similar to our proposals, to ensure independent scrutiny. As there is an exchange of information across government—with which we do not have any problems—we are anxious that there should be a consistent system and level of approval of requests for information.
Although the Government do not believe it, the development of social security benefits depends partly on the introduction of tax credits—including, of course, the working families tax credit, which replaced family credit. Already, there appear to be a number of problems with fraud in respect of the working families tax credit, and I understand that the extent of fraud in the Canadian working income supplement system is so great that Canada is moving back to a benefits-based system. In other parts of the world, therefore, tax credits seem to be prone to fraud, and the difficulty that we all face is that the system of checking is different as between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury and the Inland Revenue. That is why we want to achieve a much greater strengthening of the independent scrutiny.
Amendments Nos. 12, 15 and 16 are linked to what we all know as a single point of contact and the potential for trawling or fishing. We seem to have been hung up on the


fishing industry in many of our debates. Amendment No. 12 would limit the number of bodies from which an organisation could receive a request for information. As the Bill covers local government and Departments such as the DSS, many people could contact an organisation for information about a possible fraud.
Amendment No. 15 provides that, because of the sheer number of people who could make contact, organisations should have a specific point of contact through which the Government should channel requests. There is no single point of contact in the Government or in local authorities, but the code of practice might be amended to make it easier for companies to be made aware of the fact that they will be dealing with fewer people.
I understand that, following debates in Committee, negotiations have been taking place between the DSS and affected organisations in the private sector. It has been agreed that requests for information will be addressed to a nominated single point of contact, where one has been specified. To try to tighten up on the unknown number of requests that could be made by the public sector, it will make requests only in writing by post, fax, e-mail or electronic password-controlled database access. Telephone contact will be made only by arrangement and only to clarify or query information already provided under a written request. Authorised officers will not make inquiries by means of a personal visit to any corporate premises. That provides reassurance, but I would be grateful if the Minister of State confirmed it. It is important that we are able to reassure the private sector.
I understand from the telecoms fraud group that there are still issues outstanding. The DSS has agreed that only a proportion of DSS officers authorised to use the information powers in the Bill will be allowed to contact telecoms companies. However, that does not apply to the local authorities, of which there are 409. I agree with the group that the Government tend to ignore the sheer number of local authorities and concentrate on their own offices. That is understandable, but it makes it more difficult for the private sector to know with whom it is dealing.

Mr. Webb: May I take the hon. Lady back to amendment No. 11A? I apologise for interrupting her flow of thought and for not intervening sooner. The amendment states:
Prior to the exercise of the power … an authorised officer… shall obtain in writing the consent to carry out an investigation.
Authorised officers will be empowered by the Bill to carry out searches and they are deemed senior enough do so, but it is not clear from whom they would get that consent. Of whom is consent being asked?

Mrs. Lait: In order to build in an element of independent scrutiny, we seek to involve somebody further up the system who will not necessarily be part of the organisation from which the investigating or authorising officer comes. If we persuade the Government to accept the amendment, I shall obviously be happy to negotiate on the correct language. We want to build in a firebreak that can pull people up short and make them ask whether they need the information and, if so, why they need it.
Amendment No. 19 has a similar purpose, as it seeks to ensure standardisation across Government in respect of those who can make inquiries. We want to explore the

issue of the authorised officer and the need to meet the same standards as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which most of us probably know as RIPA. The acronym sounds more like a river than an Act of Parliament, but never mind. We are also concerned that there are difficulties in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the draft code of practice, which outlines the Government's proposed system of authorisation. The authorised officers are of executive officer grade, and, despite many debates in Committee, the Government have not changed that arrangement.
British Telecom, which is significantly affected by RIPA, has pointed out that the grade of authorisation is at variance with the higher grade of management controls that are expected to be introduced under subsections (2) and (3) of section 25 of RIPA for exactly the same type of communications data. Telecommunications companies will be dealing with two levels of officers across government in respect of similar information. BT remains very concerned and continues to hope that the government can deal with its anxieties. We have heard on many occasions about the Minister of State's view that training will deal with that discrepancy in the seniority of the authorised officers, but the problem is more fundamental, as it concerns the provision across companies of similar, sensitive data to very different levels of authority.
We feel strongly about the amendments and believe that the Government still need to negotiate with the companies and organisations that are involved. I would be grateful to hear about the progress that is being made, as I hope that the outstanding concerns will be addressed and that those companies and organisations will get some comfort from the Government.

Mr. Webb: I have much sympathy with the spirit of the amendments, which reflect many of the concerns that the Liberal Democrats have expressed about the lack of independent scrutiny, the advantages of a single point of contact and the seniority of the authorised officers. I am, however, anxious about some of the specifics. As I mentioned in an intervention, amendment No. 11A is problematic. It states that the officer needs written consent, but it says nothing about the people who should provide that consent or their seniority. Interestingly, it was suggested that such people could come from outside the organisation, but if the amendment is to achieve its desired goal, it should be much more explicit. One can imagine implementation through forms of written permission by another authorised officer. I am not sure where that would lead us.
5.15 pm
I am sympathetic to the idea of a single point of contact, partly for the convenience of those from whom information is obtained and partly because of the concept of an audit trail. If matters go wrong, and there is some suggestion of abuse of the powers, we need thorough records of their use. The amendments try to achieve that.
Amendment No. 19 seeks consistency about seniority. That is sensible. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made a good point about a telecommunications company being contacted by different Government officials under different Acts, which require different levels


of seniority. There is no good reason for that. I am therefore sympathetic to the amendments, but worried about aspects of their implementation.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Perhaps the Minister of State is about to shoot my fox and say that, unknown to me, progress has already been made on reaching agreement with banks and others who will receive calls from Benefits Agency or Department of Social Security staff.
I especially support amendment No. 12, which proposes a central point of control. That could be the only method of preventing the system from spreading to the extent of allowing officials to go on fishing expeditions to find material about individuals. It would therefore be sensible to route all calls through one control centre to an appointed person in the banks or utility companies who understood the system.
People who work in banks or utility companies are busy. If a phone rings and the caller claims to be Joe Bloggs from the Benefits Agency, the person who replies is more than likely to look up the details on the computer and provide the answer without checking the caller's precise identity. Private detectives and similar individuals can be extremely clever at passing themselves off as officials when trying to glean information. Providing for a central point of contact is therefore sensible. I am interested in finding out whether the Minister of State has made progress with the industry on that.
We are slightly ill at ease because we have reached the final stages of considering the Bill, yet one or two matters do not appear to have been resolved to our complete satisfaction. They raise serious questions about individual liberty and privacy. It was ever thus with such measures and we must ultimately rely on Ministers to hatch the best deal possible and hope that it works. However, I share my hon. Friends' anxieties. We remain ill at ease about the clause.

Mr. Rooker: I remind hon. Members that we have a draft code of practice, and we have said that after Royal Assent it will be issued for full-scale consultation with the industry and all other relevant bodies. By full consultation, I mean a normal three-month consultation with all interested parties. The code will be quotable in courts of law and govern the use of powers in the Bill. I emphasise that passing the Bill this week is not the end of the matter. The guidelines for its powers will be governed by a code of practice about which we will fully consult. If Members in both Houses wish, they can use the time available to debate the matter. The code is not subject to affirmative or, indeed, negative procedures, but there is nothing to stop issues relating to the consultation or the code being debated in the House.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) mentioned various agreements, but I did not make a list of them. The note that I have tells me that all the points that she raised have been agreed with the private sector. I also remind her that they were agreed with the private sector at the time we issued the present draft code of practice. Since the Standing Committee, there has been nothing new for me to report back to the House.
We have dealt with the hon. Lady's list of points. I shall deal with the amendments in chronological order in a moment, but I want to get a further point out of the way

so that I do not forget about it. The hon. Lady raised the issue—this was a theme in Committee as well—of comparing the grades of the civil servants authorised to operate under the terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 with those who will operate under the Bill. Those who operate under the Act are authorised to obtain traffic data from telecommunications companies. Department of Social Security officers will not be interested in traffic data; they will be interested in who pays the bills, for example, or who lives at the address to which the bills are sent. They will be limited to obtaining that kind of information; they will not be interested in who spoke to whom. There will be no authority for DSS officers to check on traffic data. We are not interested in that. With respect, therefore, it is not fair to compare the civil servants operating under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act with those who will operate under the powers of the Bill.
I shall briefly go through the amendments in order. I promise the House, by the way, that I shall not use all the notes available, of which I have 21 pages. Amendment No. 11A would create an unnecessary further layer of bureaucracy, and we do not want to do that because it would incur extra cost and time. We have already explained at some length in Committee why we do not think it necessary for officers to obtain consent before making inquiries, but let me spell it out again, because it is important so far as the staff in my Department are concerned.
The Bill already provides safeguards to prevent the powers to obtain information from being abused. The powers may be used only when their use is reasonable for purposes set out in the legislation. Secondly, the officers who use the powers will not have the responsibility for making decisions about benefit entitlement, or about whether fraud has been committed. So, already, on the second of my seven points, we have reached a further check up the hierarchy.
I noticed that the hon. Lady gave a quaint definition of "independent" by saying that it would refer to someone else in the Department. I thought that "independent" meant independent, as in outside the Department. Perhaps I have misunderstood. The fact is that the people making the inquiries under these powers will not be the people who decide whether someone is entitled to benefit. That is important: they will be removed from the decision-making process. That should give the House confidence that the officers conducting the inquiries will take an objective view when doing so.
Furthermore, one cannot just dismiss the fact that I have said that the officers will be trained by saying, "Oh, they are going to be trained. Well, that doesn't matter; we are not interested in that." The Department is training more officers in anti-fraud and security than ever before, and they are of obtaining professional qualifications accredited by outside bodies. The testimony to the quality of the training in the DSS now is that the private sector advertises for PINS—professionalism in security—trained and qualified staff. The private sector is seeking to poach my Department's trained staff because it knows that they have gained a qualification through quality professional training.
The officers will have to record the details of why the inquiries were made. It will not be possible for them to make inquiries without making such records. Also, if they abuse the powers, they will be found out and punished.


That could involve a prison sentence. If DSS officers were to go trawling through computer systems with no good reason, perhaps because a friend or family member had asked them to look into what someone was getting, or to find out where someone was living—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is trying to say something from a sedentary position.

Mr. Eric Pickles: I merely wondered how common this was. Does it happen a lot? How many prosecutions take place each year?

Mr. Rooker: I am trying to be as helpful as I can. What I am saying is that these things happen, and have happened in the past. The numbers involved are small but we catch them, because we police the system. No system is perfect, and people must be confident that officers using the powers in the Bill will be checked out.
In 2000—I believe that I gave these figures in Committee—there were 18 prosecutions, three downgrades, 21 resignations and 30 dismissals among 80,000 staff in the Benefits Agency. Those are small numbers, but I am not suggesting that the situation is not serious: there have, after all, been prosecutions, resignations and dismissals. We are policing what our staff are doing in using their powers, which may be intrusive in terms of access to personal information. We have the Computer Misuse Act 1990, the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Data Protection Acts. Prison sentences may be imposed following prosecutions carried out successfully under those Acts. Before the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar asks me, however, let me say that I do not know how many people were sent to prison last year.
The number of authorised officers will, as we have said, be limited. We do not expect the Secretary of State to need more than 300 officers, and we propose to authorise only 175 initially. The Benefits Agency has 80,000 staff, fewer than 0.5 per cent. of whom will be authorised to use the powers in the Bill.
The work of authorised officers will be supervised, and subject to regular management checks. We are talking about normal operational factors and arrangements, and about people who are undoubtedly highly trained specialists, with managers who are also trained specialists. We do not want more checks and red tape than we have already. It could be argued that we have gone too far now, but we need this provision because we are dealing with sensitive information.
I remind the hon. Member for Beckenham that it was the previous Government who consolidated provisions into the Social Security Administration Act 1992. It was also the previous Government who extended those powers and made them available to local authorities in the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. I am not making a major point about that; I am merely expressing the hope that there is some consensus.
It may be said—although this is a banal way of putting it—that the same group of officials advised both Governments, and that both Governments have soaked up what they said. We have not soaked it up, however; we have subjected it to our own questioning. When planning the Bill, we removed a lot of material that existed in early drafts. My ministerial colleagues and I asked ourselves whether we could stand at the Dispatch Box and feel

comfortable about saying that we were satisfied that we were doing only what we considered necessary to police the system further, and that there would be no fishing expeditions and no intrusion on people just because they were claiming benefit. As a result, the Bill has been pared down to become a modest technical adjustment to combat fraud.
Amendment No. 12 relates to centralisation. I know that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has raised the issue before, and I do not criticise him. Ours is a large Department, responsible for spending—I think—a third of all Government money. Our budget for benefits is £100 billion a year—£2 billion a week. That is big money, and a good many people are needed to manage the operation successfully—there are some 600 offices around the country. We have said, however, that all inquiries related to the Bill will be routed through the 13 administrative areas over which the Benefits Agency is spread, in addition to the headquarters of the national intelligence unit, which deals with organised fraud. Therefore, we have cut the number of sites from 600 to 14. I honestly think that that is reasonable. It is not reasonable to route all inquiries through one central office.
5.30 pm
We will limit the number of authorised officers to 175 to start with. Ministers—other Ministers; not me—will be subject to questions on how the Bill is working. The code of practice will guide the way in which it operates. The House can revisit the matter any time it chooses if issues are raised that do not conform with the promises and commitments that we have given during the passage of the Bill.

Mrs. Lait: The right hon. Gentleman mentions that inquiries will be routed through only 14 DSS sites, but there are 409 local authorities. Will it continue to be 409 local authorities?

Mr. Rooker: I certainly hope not. It is worse than that because there are 409 local authorities and each of them probably has more than a dozen departments, but Ministers at the centre cannot dictate to local authority chief executives how they organise their affairs. In Committee, I gave examples of good practice, particularly in Gloucester, where all inquiries are routed through one department. There is nothing to stop local authorities—it would be good practice—from making a combined effort on anti-fraud measures; regions, or local authorities that are grouped together could combine. They could share anti-fraud measures and activity. There could be a central point for one or more local authorities, but we cannot—it is just not possible—tell chief executives how they will organise.
I accept that that may look like a cop-out. Time will tell whether local authorities are sensible in the way they operate the powers. As I have said, they are not completely analogous with those of the Government. They will not have online access to data in the private sector unless they have specific sanction and authority from the Secretary of State. They are not being given that authority. We are not prepared to say that we have that much confidence in local authorities that we are prepared to make their powers analogous to those of the Government from day one—far from it; we will not do that.
There are excellent local authorities that are efficient, that are good value for money and that have good anti-fraud operations. Other local authorities are at the other end of the spectrum. We well appreciate that there are different practices, but we cannot give an absolute commitment on the basis of all 409 authorities.
Amendment No. 15 provides that organisations can object to a request for information on the ground that it is too onerous. May I briefly remind the House of the position? Businesses expressed concerns that inquiries should be centralised. I have already said that we will get the number down to 14 units from 600. Businesses expressed concerns that they would be asked for information that they did not normally collect. We have made it clear that we will not ask for such information. They expressed concern that they would have to develop new software and new ways of storing information, and to store information for longer. We have given reassurances on all those points. They will not be required to buy new software and to change the way they keep information. At every turn, we have made it clear that we are concerned to keep burdens to a minimum; we have made many commitments to do that. I repeat them on the Floor of the House today.
We have made it clear at paragraph 1.7 of the code of practice that businesses may contact authorised officers if there are problems in meeting a particular request. The code makes it clear that the authorised officer must consider the organisation's objections and amend the request where that would be reasonable. There must be a test of reasonableness. It will not be done on the basis of a hunch or a whim. The code is admissible in court proceedings. That is a further back-up.
I am a little surprised about amendment No. 16. If authorised officers had to give their background reasons for making a request or even a summary, that would let the cat out of the bag. The request might involve a collusive employer, yet the request would be made to the employer. It may be a bank or a financial institution. I am sure that the Opposition are not really serious about amendment No. 16 and therefore I will not spend any more time on it.
In some ways, I touched on the subject of amendment No. 19 when I referred to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the rank and position of officers. It is not for the private sector to decide which rank of civil servant it is prepared to deal with when the civil servant is exercising powers conferred by statute and agreed by this House. We will not be told that by the private sector, because the law decides that issue, and Government management will decide the rest through executive responsibility. However, we will not be unreasonable. Executive officers cover a range of management in the Department and we are satisfied with the way in which they operate their present powers, which they have used since 1948, to contact companies every day across the country.
I do not accept the telecommunications industry's point about inconsistency between the grades of officers. The nature of the information required is different: we will not be looking for traffic information. It will be made crystal clear that the inquiries made using the powers in the Bill will be made under social security legislation and

exclusively for social security purposes, by a named authorised officer working for a DSS intelligence unit or a local authority. Information providers will have a duty to check that the inquiry is from a source known to them as being an authorised officer. They will not hand out information about their customers willy-nilly, because they are not stupid. Companies know that it would be bad public relations, because one bad case could lose hundreds, if not thousands, of customers if they think that their information is not being properly looked after.
I have not used all my notes, and I hope that the House will not invite me to do so, because we debated the issues in Committee. However, that is no reason why they should not come back to the Floor of the House and, in some ways, it has been a useful exercise. I hope that I have been able to put on record a summary of the commitments that we have already given, so that the private sector knows that we seek to work with it and not against it.

Mrs. Lait: I was interested in the Minister's comments, some of which—like our comments—have been made before. I am reassured that the code of practice is genuinely open for consultation and, I hope, negotiation. I hope that problems will be negotiated, rather than solutions being imposed at the end of the consultation, because it is in the Government's interests—not to mention those of taxpayers—to ensure that the system works well and effectively. If difficulties arose between the private sector and the public sector, including the 409 local authorities, it would make it difficult to ensure that the legislation worked effectively.
I hope that the consultation on the code of practice will include all 409 local authorities, and will give rise to suggestions on how they can reduce the number of points of contact. It would be horrendous to try to keep records up to date for so many local authorities.

Mr. Rooker: indicated assent.

Mrs. Lait: I see that the Minister shares my concerns. Although he unfortunately will not be with us in the next Parliament, we will be able to call in aid his words.

Mr. Rooker: In that case, and without the benefit of advice, it would be my view that the consultation should include every concerned body, including local authorities. As a result, the code of practice might include advice on how even local authorities use their powers under the Bill. Given that the Government have reduced the number of units from 600 to 14, it is not unreasonable to ask local authorities to designate one point of contact, and if neighbouring authorities can combine their fraud work, so much the better. I shall watch with interest to see whether my words have any effect.

Mrs. Lait: I just hope that the Minister's words are not informed by a touch of demob happiness. We will also watch the situation closely and keep in touch with those organisations that have expressed concerns. I hope that we will hear that those concerns have been addressed, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Webb: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 31, leave out "has committed,".

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 2, line 37, leave out—


'who is an official of a Government department and'.
No. 14, in page 3, line 1, leave out "or described".

Mr. Webb: Amendment No. 11 might seem a minor amendment to tidy up the Bill's drafting, but there is an issue of substance behind it. Under clause 1, an authorised officer cannot require information
unless it appears to that officer that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the identified person to whom it relates is—
(a) a person who has committed, is committing or intends to commit a benefit offence".
Let us suppose that the criteria did not include the phrase:
is committing or intends to commit
and that the House had simply decided that these powers could be exercised only in the case of people with a conviction for benefit fraud. There is no way that the clause would have been drafted in that way, because removing that phrase would mean that the clause read that the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the person had committed such an offence.
The test of reasonableness cannot apply to history. People have either committed an offence or they have not. So it is odd, and no more than that, that the test of reasonableness in the Bill is applied to three things—whether a person has committed, is committing or intends to commit a benefit offence—because on one of those criteria there is no test of reasonableness. That is what first alerted me to wonder what was going on with regard to inclusion of the words "has committed".
When I queried this in Committee, the initial response of the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), was to tell me to go back and read the Bill—which I did—where it says that an officer must have "reasonable grounds for believing" that the person has committed fraud and is about to commit fraud again. That is not what the Bill says—it says:
has committed, is committing or intends to commit
fraud. So the Minister's remarks were not, in my judgment, accurate. The condition is that once someone has committed fraud, they fall within the scope of clause 1, whether or not they are committing or intend to commit an offence.
The Minister went on to say, and this offered me some reassurance:
If an authorised officer was dealing with a case in which a claimant had previously committed fraud he could not make inquiries unless he had reasonable grounds to believe that fraud was about to be committed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 April 2001; c. 28.]
It was spelled out in Committee that not only must someone have committed an offence but they must be about to commit one. That contradicts the Bill, which refers to someone who has committed, is committing or intends to commit an offence.
If the Bill should read "and intends", why does it not do so? If having merely committed an offence is not a sufficient condition, why is it mentioned at all? That is the nub of the amendment. The phrase "has committed" adds nothing to the Bill if the Minister's assurances are correct. If "has committed" is not a sufficient condition and there must be reasonable grounds for thinking that someone is committing or will commit an offence, the phrase "has committed" does not need to be included.
It could be argued that if the phrase is not doing anything it does not matter whether it is taken out or left in. My worry is that leaving it in provides scope for authorised people to say, when challenged, that the Bill allows them to use these powers because someone has committed fraud. If that is not the Government's intention—and the Minister has made it quite clear that it is not—why are they giving themselves that power?
The wording of new clause 2 is better than that of clause 1. New clause 2 refers to a benefit recipient having a conviction for fraud or the officer having reasonable grounds for believing that the recipient is committing or will commit an offence. In the light of our debate in Committee, it has become apparent that if we were to write such a provision from scratch we would probably use the wording in new clause 2 rather than that in the Bill. In new clause 2, the test of reasonableness does not apply to the past, but only to the present and future.
5.45 pm
I do not want to be accused of nit-picking, as my intention is to do more than that. As drafted, the Bill does not make much sense. The test of reasonableness cannot be applied to something that happened in the past, but I am worried that that poor drafting leaves open a possibility that the Government say that they did not intend. The Government say that the fact that a person did something in the past does not give an authorised officer an automatic right to seek that information. However, the fact that the Bill uses the word "or" rather than "and" means that it will be sufficient for a person to have done something in the past.
If the Government agree that that is not what they intend, they should accept the amendment. An authorised officer could take the phrase "has committed" as one of the considerations for deciding whether a person was likely to commit a fraud, but the distinction that I want to make, through the amendment, is that that would not be a sufficient consideration.
The amendment would help the Government achieve what the Under-Secretary assured me in Committee was their intention. The present wording of the Bill would not achieve that.

Mrs. Lait: Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are very different from the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).
Amendment No. 13 would ensure the efficient transmission of data between the Government and local authorities. Both have authorised officers, and clause 1(2)(d) enables them to detect more types of fraud. However, there is a limitation on the exchange of information between the Government and local authorities. The Local Government Association has said that it has
been advised verbally that it is the intention of the Department to cross check against benefit records and to provide information


to the Benefits Agency and local authorities. It also states that it
welcomes that clarification of how the Government intends to make use of the power to obtain bulk information from utilities".
However, the Bill maintains the Government's ability to obtain bulk information from utilities, and that has given rise to continuing concern about trawling. The LGA states that it would be
grateful for confirmation that the results from the data matching process will be made available to local authorities free of charge where there are grounds for considering whether a claim is fraudulent.
However, if the Government's express aim is to use the transfer of information to aid the fight against fraud associated with property addresses, it would be most beneficial if that information were readily available to those at the heart of the system—after all, it is local authorities that deal with housing benefit. Although the extent of housing benefit fraud may be the subject of debate, there is agreement across the House that there is a lot of it. Part of the Bill's purpose is to tackle that problem. Amendment No. 13 would allow authorised officers in local authorities to source the information direct.
Amendment No. 14 is also related to trawling. It would ensure that any information sourced from the utilities related to a specific address or location. The amendment would tighten the provisions in the Bill, whereas amendment No. 13 would widen them somewhat. The purpose of both amendments is to tease out from the Government their thinking on these matters.
We are still concerned that access to bulk data from utilities will be based on addresses rather than individuals.
The Under-Secretary said in Committee that the intention was to look for evidence such as high or lower use of utility services. The search is on not individual names but addresses. We accept that. However, the Minister of State focused our concern by pointing out that there are 27 million dwellings in the country. The thought of trawling through 27 million addresses just in case one might find someone committing fraud gives everyone cause for concern. We want to hear from the Government that that is not how they envisage their requirement of "reasonable grounds" as specified in clause 1, subsection (2C). I seek reassurance.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I am somewhat perplexed by the reading of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of the wording in the Bill. We had an interesting exchange in Committee on that very matter. However, what he thinks of as a modest change—to take out "has committed" from section (2C) as part of the definition of those people on whom we will be allowed to check up—would blow a gaping hole in current powers to check on those who commit benefit fraud. It would make the powers that we seek the permission of the House to take in the Bill useless. What would seem to be a pernickety, or even nit-picking amendment, as he called it, would have serious practical consequences if it were agreed. I hope that our exchanges will reassure him and leave him satisfied that the present wording of the Bill does not do as he fears.
The hon. Gentleman fears that the Bill would allow any authorised officer to look at the record of any benefit claimant and, if they had ever committed fraud, to use that as the grounds to search for information on an individual basis. Whatever his interpretation of the Bill, I can assure him that it would not allow that to happen without further tests that would protect the individual.
The best way to explain it is to describe the consequences of the hon. Gentleman's amendment for present powers. He is concerned that the words "has committed" mean that we would be able to make those inquiries and that we would need no further justification. I hope that I can reassure him.
First, I will explain why the words "has committed" are crucial. It is not necessarily the case that the frauds that we investigate are current. For example, at the first sign of interest from the Department—even if it is only a routine review of a claim—a fraudster may sign off benefit. He then goes from committing a fraud to being someone who has committed a fraud, which means that we would not be entitled to continue to investigate the unsolved fraud that we had suspected. That is why the phrase "has committed" is in the Bill.
For example, with jobseeker's allowance, it is a requirement to sign every two weeks to say that one is available for and actively seeking work. If one is not in that situation, one is committing a fraud when one signs to say that. As soon as someone has finished signing, the offence is in the past.
The words "has committed" ensure that we can pick up people who are in the process of committing a fraud and who may realise that we are interested and so allow the benefit claim to lapse or who make other arrangements to put what they have done into the past tense. If the hon. Gentleman's version of the Bill became law, it would stop us investigating any individual who went from committing to having committed an offence by signing off.
I shall attempt to explain why the powers about which he is concerned cannot be interpreted as he suggests. The test of reasonableness that he said did not apply, does apply because we are talking about the same claim—it is not necessarily a claim that is way in the past, as the individual may have let it lapse because he has realised that we are on to him. An authorised officer must be satisfied before using the powers in section (2C) that the tests apply. It must appear to him that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person about whom he is inquiring has committed—perhaps only a day ago—is committing or intends to commit a benefits offence or is a family member of such a person.
Secondly—this is where the Social Security Administration Act 1992 powers come in—he must be satisfied that his inquiry is reasonable for explicitly set-out purposes. I will not go into those as they have been an obvious part of benefit-related powers for some time.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the amendment would damage our present powers and that the powers that we are considering allow us only to make inquiries about individuals whom we suspect—not any individual in the country who may have committed benefit fraud 20 years ago, but someone whom we suspect of being involved in something in the two areas that the authorised officer has to consider. That has to be done reasonably.
If the hon. Gentleman needs further assurances, he should reflect on the fact that the terminology used in the Bill is not new. The words "has committed" appear in all the legislation and have always been interpreted as I have outlined rather than in the way he suggested. I hope that he will accept that the law has tended to support my interpretation rather than his worries. In other words, the words simply refer to the fact that there is an unresolved crime that is under investigation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would check out section 20C of the Taxes Management Act 1970, which states that there must be reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence involving serious fraud
is being, has been or is about to be committed".
The same considerations apply. Obviously, the offence is the one that is under investigation. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) mentioned two issues when speaking to amendments Nos. 13 and 14. I hope that I can reassure her about those. First, I suspect that there has been some misunderstanding—she mentioned this—on the part of the local authorities about whether they would be allowed access to the data matching work that may be done for housing benefit purposes. I repeat my assurance that the way in which that works is that we do the matching and pass the information on to them, free of charge.
Amendment No.13 would bring about a less efficient method. We would not pass the information to local authorities—they would have to make their own arrangements to do their own data matching for housing benefit, which would be costly and less efficient. We have records of all those claiming social security benefits and that includes housing benefits. We will do the bulk utility data matching against housing benefit records as well as our social security records and we will pass details of inconsistencies to officers in the Benefits Agency and to authorised officers in local authorities for further investigation.
That means that local authorities do not need a power to obtain the bulk data themselves because we shall do it on their behalf. It explains the drafting of the provision, which limits those powers to officers from Departments. However, I reassure the hon. Lady that we shall not keep to ourselves the results of such data matching in respect of housing benefit. We shall pass it to the appropriate local authorities and—I am happy to confirm—it will be free of charge. I hope that disposes of the need for further action on amendment No. 13.
6 pm
We had some discussion in Committee about how we might use the powers under amendment No. 14 for data matching on addresses. As I said then, the first step will be to conduct a pilot exercise. We have not yet held detailed discussions about the pilot, but I suspect that it will not involve all 27 million dwellings in the UK—I think we should want to begin with something smaller.
Our experience of data matching within Departments is that it throws up inconsistencies. That does not necessarily mean that fraud is going on, but such inconsistencies have to be further investigated. For example, in utility bulk data matching, we may find an address at which there is minimal use of electricity, water or gas, yet our records

show that housing benefit is being claimed and that six people are supposed to live at the address, so there is an inconsistency. There could be a perfectly innocent explanation for that inconsistency, but it could be sought out only by further investigation. That is what we need to do—to throw up a series of inconsistencies and pass them to investigating officers so that they can check why they might have occurred.
I confirm to the hon. Member for Beckenham that we shall treat sensitively any matches that are revealed by the pilots. If little electricity had been consumed, that might have been because someone had been in hospital for a long time, so we should not send fraud squad people crashing in to break down the door. We would check our records to find out whether there were innocent explanations and, if there were not, we would investigate further to discover whether fraud was being committed.
We have five or six years' experience of general matching across our system in the DSS, which has successfully saved £314 million of benefit expenditure. We have seen how that works and we want to try out a pilot scheme. The phraseology in the Bill allows us the maximum leeway in conducting a pilot to try to establish abnormally high or low utility use. That is why I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured and will not press her amendment.

Mr. Webb: I may take the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security by surprise when I say that I found her response generally helpful. My understanding of "has committed" in this context is that it refers to people who have, for example, been convicted of an offence. Clearly, I have no intention of preventing the Department from pursuing a past fraud even though it is no longer current.
When the Under-Secretary responded to my intervention in Committee, she said that it was not enough that people had committed fraud and that they must also be suspected of committing it—there was an "and". However, it turns out that there is no "and"; people merely need to "have committed" the offence, so that further confused me.
None the less, the hon. Lady's comments this afternoon are convincing so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

ARRANGEMENTS FOR PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF INFORMATION

Mrs. Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 8, line 21, at end insert—
'(g) any person not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f) above but who falls within one of the categories of section 109B(2A) of the Administration Act.'.
The amendment relates to payment for compliance with obligations to provide information. Throughout our debates on the measure, the Government have constantly underplayed its potential cost to business. The Secretary of State for Social Security said that he thought that the annual cost of providing information to a bank was estimated as just over one hour of its profits. Indeed, that was reiterated in Committee by the Minister of State. That was a rather light-hearted approach to a serious problem.
The provisions on payment for the supply of information are that the Secretary of State may make payments for information obtained from credit reference agencies. It is a shame that the provision will not include CIFAS, but we may get around to that. There is discretion to make payments to telecommunications providers in cases where they will be asked to perform a unique processing service. Payments may also be made to utility companies for bulk information—they are the only organisations that will be required to provide such information.
There is also a provision whereby the Secretary of State may make payments where he considers that reasonable, but need not do so if he considers such payments inappropriate. Several organisations have expressed concerns to us about that provision—some of which relate to estimates of the actual costs that they are likely to face. The British Bankers Association stated:
Banks found it possible to scope the cost of performing individual searches".
That is a ghastly use of the word "scope"; I always thought that it was a noun. The association notes that the cost
would depend on the quality, the accuracy and the amount of information provided by the DSS. One bank estimated … in excess of £500,000.
There are signs that the DSS and local authorities will enter negotiations with telecom service providers to decide when payment is appropriate and how much will be paid. We welcome that. However, there is still concern in the telecoms industry that payments to reimburse the cost of providing information manually have yet to be agreed. That remains a worry to many small and medium-sized telecoms companies. I should appreciate reassurance that the Government have taken that point on board.
Amendment No. 20 tries to provide a system whereby any business or organisation that may be required to provide information can claim financial redress.

Mr. Webb: I support the amendment. The categories of information provider to whom payment may be made seem somewhat arbitrary. Reasons have been given, but seem to have been plucked from the air. It is reasonable that people who help the Government by providing information should receive compensation for the cost of doing so, especially if there is little reciprocal flow of information—although there may be more than we expect. The hon. Lady has picked up an unfortunate omission in the Bill, for which no good excuse has been offered, so I support her proposal.

Angela Eagle: We debated this issue in Committee, so it may not surprise Opposition Members to hear that we have not changed our mind about it. Obviously, we keep an open mind, and after the Committee debate we re-examined extensively all our thinking on the matter but, funnily enough, we came to the same conclusion that we reached when the Bill was drawn up.
I understand the worries of organisations about Government-imposed costs, but we need to put the provision into perspective. For some of the largest banks, the estimated cost is £7.6 million—that is less than an

hour's profit for one of them. There are some reasons for banks to co-operate with us regardless of whether they are reimbursed.
First, they need to demonstrate that they are good corporate citizens. That is certainly a good thing for them to do, given their profits and public image. Secondly, all companies benefit from operating in a well-regulated society, with the rule of law, where obligations are placed on organisations. I should have thought that, today of all days, it is important for us and the banks to make that point.
It is in everyone's interest as taxpayers—corporations pay taxes, as well as individuals—to take responsibility for ensuring that we minimise the chances of fraudsters being successful in their attempts to rip off the private sector or the public sector. We all have an interest in ensuring that loopholes are closed and that circumstances are created in which we can chase the fraudsters as effectively as possible.
We shall not ask for unreasonable amounts of data. I hope that we have reassured organisations that we will not make unreasonable demands. We shall seek to make our inquiries in such a way as to minimise their costs. We have given commitments that businesses will not be required to invest in special software, except in the extraction of bulk information on the utilities, where we shall meet the cost. They will not be required to obtain information especially to meet inquiries, or to store information differently or for longer than they do already.
I should like to reassure businesses that they need not fear the powers and to emphasise that it is right and proper for businesses that enjoy the advantages of trading in this country to help to defend taxpayers' money and to assist us in our fight against fraud, which may spill over from the public sector to the private sector.

Mrs. Lait: Will the reimbursement for information inquiries be covered in the consultation on the code of practice?

Angela Eagle: The Bill states that there are circumstances in which we shall pay. For example, we shall pay when we require information from organisations, such as credit reference agencies, that exist to sell that information. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, we have been able since the 1940s to require information in certain cases, and have never paid. We will always listen to those organisations that want to make representations to us, and they can clearly do so as part of the consultation on the code of practice.
I hope that, throughout the debates on the Bill, we have explained how we envisage the system of payments for information. Basically, we shall pay those who sell the information that we require. However, we do not expect to pay those from whom we have received information—for example, on collusive employers—in the past, nor do we expect to pay for information from banks, but we shall not make unreasonable demands of them or increase their costs by the way in which we operate the system. Of course, we are always happy to listen to the arguments and observations of those in the private sector with whom we wish to co-operate.

Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her assurance that those who still have concerns about the cost


of compliance can include them in the discussions. I am somewhat concerned that the Government think that they should not pay for the extra burdens that they have put on business, but that is typical of this Government. One of the main complaints that I receive from businesses in my constituency is about the increase in the burden of red tape and the costs of compliance. However, on the ground that they will have the opportunity to be consulted and, I hope, to negotiate a solution to the problems, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION WITH OVERSEAS AUTHORITIES

Mrs. Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain and publish a list of countries with whom there are arrangements in force for the exchange of relevant information under this section.'.
We decided to table this amendment, under which a list of countries with whom the Government are prepared to exchange information would be published, largely because the Under-Secretary gave us a complicated and unclear answer in Committee, which is most uncharacteristic. She started by saying that the countries with which the Government would wish to exchange information would comply with the
European convention on human rights and a European Union data protection directive, which govern what can be done with information held by a Government".
She also said that the Secretary of State would
be satisfied that the other country is subject to the ECHR and the directive or to similar enactments … We would also consider other factors such as whether the other country has a stable, democratic system of government. We would not transfer information to a police state or a country with a bad human rights record".
That all sounds reasonable and sensible, but it represents a blanket acceptance of countries.
The Under-Secretary went on to mention:
The only country with which we have a bilateral agreement is Ireland, as our social security systems are similar".
We do not argue about that; it is absolutely correct. However, she then went to say:
Arrangements would not be considered with countries that have bad human rights records and inadequate protections for the privacy of the individual, or which lack agreements in law that largely conform to the European convention on human rights and the data protection legislation".
Finally, towards the end of her contribution, she said:
We intend matters to develop bilaterally from country to country as we pick up particular problems in our anti-fraud work."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 April 2001; c. 66–69.]
I am afraid that I became confused at that stage because we had gone from a blanket acceptance provided that everyone had signed up to the ECHR and the EU data protection directive, through the bilateral agreement with Ireland, to each country having a bilateral agreement. I thought that it would be more sensible if the Government were to publish a list of countries with which they were prepared to share information.
I dug out the list of countries that have ratified the ECHR and its consequential protocols. I noticed that, interestingly, countries such as Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the

Netherlands, Portugal and, indeed, the United Kingdom have not signed protocol 7, so will we share information with them? However, Albania has signed all the protocols. Turkey, which is applying to join the EU, has ratified only the original convention and protocol 1. Russia has signed the convention, but not protocol 6. Macedonia, Romania and Ukraine have signed the entire convention and protocols. Poland has not signed protocol 7.
Czechoslovakia has signed them all, as has Hungary. Czechoslovakia is applying to join the EU and Turkey is on the list of applicants. [Interruption.] I apologise; I mean the Czech Republic. I deliberately did not refer to the Slovak Republic and Slovenia for obvious reasons. However, the Czech Republic has signed the convention and all its protocols and is applying to the EU for membership, as are Poland and Hungary. I hope that if the Under-Secretary is suggesting that we shall automatically exchange information with Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and, indeed, Turkey, the Secretary of State will carefully investigate the robustness of the information that they supply.
To reduce my confusion, it would be useful if the Minister could agree to our suggestion—she does not have to accept the amendment—that a list of countries with which the Government are prepared to share information is produced. That would reassure us that it is unlikely that private information will get into the hands of people who should not receive it.

Mr. David Wilshire: I made a very modest contribution in Committee and I have followed these proceedings with care and interest. I notice that we still have three and a half hours in which to debate the Bill and that gives me an opportunity to develop some thoughts on this amendment. As those on the Government Benches showed great enthusiasm about learning which countries signed the European convention on human rights, I would be very happy to go through all 40-plus signatories and give them the full details if that is what they would like. I suspect, however, that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not let me go that far.

Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his contribution. I hope that he will be very reassured by what I shall say in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and to the amendment. A mistake has been made. Signing the European convention on human rights is not the only condition that must be met if we are to share information. Before the hon. Gentleman lists all 40 countries, I hope to reassure him on that point. Clearly, I will go into much more detail when it is my time to reply.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister, and I assure her that I will allow her a few moments before 10 o'clock in which to respond to some of the points that I will make.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, the amendment seeks to clarify an issue that was left vague in Committee. We also need to examine the subjective judgments that were outlined in Committee, because I worry greatly when subjective tests are applied to who should or who should not receive sensitive information.
The Government and the Opposition accept that sensitive information can be passed only to those foreign countries that have adequate safeguards. There is no


dispute between us on the need to have such safeguards to prevent the misuse of information. Although the Minister will be helpful in her reply—she has been in the past—she will find it difficult to provide an exhaustive list of the safeguards and to list the countries that possess them. I accept her point that there is more than one safeguard and, in Committee, the Government offered two factual tests that could apply. However, they then added some subjective views on issues such as stable government.
The first test with which the Government appear to be happy—I do not object to it in principle—relates to the European Court of Human Rights. In the Committee's third sitting, the Minister said:
For it to appear to a Secretary of State that the other country has adequate safeguards against abuse, he must therefore be satisfied that the other country is subject to the ECHR".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 April 2001; c. 66.]
Although the Minister said that that is not the only safeguard, she made it clear that it would be a fundamental test of what is an adequate safeguard.
We need to consider closely the ECHR and I think that I am able to do so because I serve on the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe. We meet representatives of the countries that have signed the convention and, at the last count, I believe that 41 had signed it and that two were in the process of doing so. However, the target is moveable and the numbers may have changed.
It is not just the convention itself that matters. Although 40-plus countries have signed the convention, as my hon. Friend said, it has been found necessary over time to create additional protocols. It seems to me that protocols 1, 4, 6 and 7 are relevant to providing the adequate safeguards that we need. Therefore, we must know not only whether a country has signed the convention itself, but which protocols it has signed.
If we use the protocols and the convention as criteria, we must be careful. If we say that a country must sign the convention and the relevant protocols, I am sorry to tell the House that that would rule out the United Kingdom. We have not signed all the protocols, so such an arrangement would put us in an awkward position. I am sure that the Government agree that the convention is not sufficient and that the protocols are necessary to provide an adequate safeguard. Therefore, we have to consider the matter country by country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham did.
Let me explain why the convention is not adequate in itself. Just before Christmas, I was an election observer in Azerbaijan and it will not be long before Azerbaijan passes one of the Government's tests. In the past few weeks, it has been formally admitted to full membership of the Council of Europe, having ratified the convention. As an election observer, I saw at close quarters Azerbaijan's administrative system. I call it a "system" to be polite, but it would be better to call it an administrative shambles. I saw how it used computers to doctor election results, so heaven help us if we were to use the convention as a safeguard in the case of Azerbaijan and its administrative system and computer safeguards. All that we shall have is a leaky sieve and information will go all over the place. Therefore, we cannot use just the convention.
As the Government rightly say, we must go at least one step further. In Committee, they made it quite clear that one of the tests would have to be compliance with the European data protection directive. That is sensible, provided that we know what the directive will do. When it was introduced in 1995—as is often the case with that thing over there in Brussels, which puts out paperwork saying how grand something will be—a press release said that the directive's purpose was:
To prevent abuses of personal data and ensure that data subjects are informed of the existence of processing operations".
It went on in that vein saying how marvellous the directive would be.
I have done what I can to check whether the directive is being enforced in every country. I am something of a cynic when it comes to the European Union, its directives and how well they are enforced and, more often than not, I get the impression that this is the only country that enforces them properly. I will not digress but, if one examines the agricultural sector or any other issue that captures the headlines, one will discover that some members of the European Union look at directives, smile sweetly and put them in the wastepaper basket.
If that is what is happening to other directives, how can we be sure that this directive—which has been trumpeted as something that will protect British citizens from the misuse of information—will provide a proper safeguard? If it is enforced like the other directives, it will not be much good at all. I am certainly happy to support the Government in using the directive as one of the tests, but it would be helpful to know who checks that it has been enforced in this country and elsewhere. We need to know how rigorous the checks are, but how are we to do that? Is information on checking published anywhere? When my hon. Friend's list appears, information on whether the other countries of the European Union comply with the directive should perhaps be attached to it.
6.30 pm
It would also be helpful to have on the record an assurance that the provisions comply with the directive. I am not aware that that has been confirmed publicly, but I am sure that the Minister will put me right if I missed something. I look forward to her spelling out, beyond all doubt, that they have been checked against the European directive and that she is satisfied that they comply fully with it.
The Government also want us to accept that it is sensible to make subjective judgments to determine whether other countries are suitable. In Committee, the Minister said:
We would also consider other factors such as whether the other country has a stable, democratic system of government. We would not transfer information to a police state or a country with a bad human rights record, where such information might be abused."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 April 2001; c.66.]
Again, I suspect that hon. Members would say "Amen" to all of that. It is a laudable comment. However, subjective terms need clarification. What is a stable Government? What would happen if a general election in this country produced a hung Parliament with a majority of one or two and we faced another election? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mutters "Austria", and I am grateful for that example. Is the Government of the Former Yugoslav


Republic of Macedonia considered to be stable in its current state? We must have tests and definitions of a stable Government; a bland assertion is not enough.
What is a democratic Government? That is another subjective test. [Interruption.] I am getting an enormous amount of help as my hon. Friends explain that this Government is not democratic. I shall let that pass because the debate has been friendly and I do not want to agitate hordes of Labour Members when they read about that in the morning.
There are questions about democracy, even among members of the Council of Europe. Would we want to exchange information with Romania and Albania, both of which would pass the other tests? Would we define their Governments as democratic? That is debatable. I do not want to pass slurs on those countries without knowing a great deal about them, but I am sure that we could question whether Romania has a democratic Government as we understand it in this part of Europe. Subjective judgments are not necessarily a good idea.
The Minister also said that we would not want to swap information with a police state. I have a huge admiration for the Metropolitan police, but tomorrow morning we will be able to get pictures from the television and photographs from the newspapers on what has taken place in London this afternoon that portray, even us, as operating a police state. Before I get a lot of letters about that, let me make it clear that I am not criticising the actions of the police or suggesting that that assertion is true, but if people want to make mischief, they can use a subjective test, such as a police state. We must make that definition clear so that someone does not drag in the actions of a police force, such as those seen today. It is not enough to say "a police state"; we want to know what that means.
The other test is a country with a bad human rights record. We would need to go beyond 10 o'clock to get to the bottom of what on earth that might be. However, the first test is that a country should be a signatory to the European convention on human rights. Turkey's position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I need to remind him that this is not a stand part debate on clause 5. We are discussing an amendment that deals purely with whether the Secretary of State should maintain a list. The hon. Gentleman's remarks fall well outside the scope of that narrow amendment.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I understand your ruling.
I have a final concern, which is highly relevant to the amendment. The implication in Committee was that the Government should publish a list of independent sovereign foreign countries. If the Minister accepts the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, she might want to reflect on whether the list should contain at least one organisation—Europol—in addition to the countries. Will the Government consider transferring information to Europol, which was established as the European Union's law enforcement organisation with a mission to help to combat organised crime? We need to transfer information because fraud is often serious organised crime.
Europol facilitates the exchange of information between member states. That is one of its jobs. We have a ready-made tool to help the Minister to achieve her aims. Have the Government considered using Europol and, if so, how? If the Minister accepts the amendment and agrees to publish a list, will she be prepared to put Europol on it? It should include not only those countries that are deemed to be suitable for the exchange of information, but the tests that were applied to them. That would allow us to know what decisions were made and to which countries the tests were applied. We would also know why it is considered safe and sensible to transfer information to them.

Angela Eagle: I am glad to be able to respond to the debate. It appears that by giving examples to assist the Committee, I gave the wrong impression and sent the Opposition off on a tangent that does not have much to do with how we intend to operate the powers in clause 5. I hope that I can make amends by explaining how they will work and the process by which we will reach individual bilateral agreements with countries.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) was mistaken—it was probably my fault—when she assumed that being a signatory to the European convention on human rights would allow us to exchange bulk information with a particular country. Had that assumption been right, she and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) would have pertinent points to make. However, the powers will not be used in that way. I hope that I can reassure Opposition Members about that.
We will facilitate bulk exchange of information on a bilateral basis. We will not do that in secret; there will be a list of the countries with which we have reached bilateral arrangements. As I take hon. Members through the process, I hope that I will cast more light on the powers and put their minds at rest. The list will be public knowledge, but I do not intend to accept the amendment because that does not need to be stated on the face of the Bill. However, I hope that hon. Members understand that we do not want to keep secret the countries involved in bilateral exchanges. That would not be appropriate.
Clause 5 is not an "open sesame" that will allow us immediately to start sharing a wide range of information with any overseas social security administration that takes our fancy. I said that in Committee. It is a three-stage process, and this is an enabling provision that begins that process. The clause says clearly that information sharing can take place only where
it appears to the Secretary of State … that there are arrangements in force for the exchange of relevant information between him and any authorities in a country outside the United Kingdom ('the overseas country'); and … that the arrangements and the law in force in the overseas country are such as to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place against any improper use of information disclosed by the Secretary of State under this section.
Those arrangements are the second stage of the process. They mean that we would have a bilateral arrangement with any country with whom we were considering information sharing before any data changed hands, other than data that can already be exchanged under existing law. For example, we can exchange data for the administration of contributory benefits such as pensions. Indeed, this country exports nearly 1 million pensions overseas every year. However, that is wholly different from a bulk exchange.
That arrangement would take the form of a memorandum of understanding, and it would be detailed and specific about what information could be exchanged, when, for what purposes and with what safeguards. One bilateral arrangement may differ slightly from another. As I said in Committee, we have only one in place at the moment, and it is a specific memorandum of understanding with the Republic of Ireland signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his opposite number. To exchange any information under clause 5, therefore, a bilateral memorandum of understanding with the other country would be required. It should be obvious that the overseas Government and the UK would not go to the lengths of negotiating any such bilateral agreement unless there was value in it for both parties.
The aim of exchanging information in that manner is to combat transnational benefit fraud, so there would have to be cogent evidence, based on intelligence and research, that a problem existed between the two countries before we would set out on that road. Hon. Members may well conclude that any list of countries affected by the powers in clause 5 would be reasonably short.
In Committee, we were asked what we planned to do with countries that do not have satisfactory arrangements to protect human rights and to safeguard exchanged data. Clearly, we would not enter into a bilateral arrangement for a free and full exchange of information with such a country. However, there would be no impediment to our co-operation with the authorities in that country to obtain information on a case-specific basis. No new legislation is needed for that; it already happens. We would certainly not entertain the prospect of bulk exchange of information with such a country, and nor would clause 5 allow it.
Transnational benefit fraud is a problem that we need to take seriously. On 22 April 1999, the representatives of the Governments of the European Union member states, meeting in the European Council, passed a resolution on a code of conduct for improving co-operation between authorities of the member states in combating transnational social security benefit and contribution fraud, undeclared work and the transnational hiring out of workers. The problem is not peculiar to the United Kingdom. The German and Dutch authorities recently detected 30,000 offences of transnational working and claiming as a result of one data-matching exercise. There are gains to be made if we can come to the appropriate arrangements.
We issued a press release on the memorandum of understanding with the Government of Ireland last October when it was signed. When the list extends beyond one, we will maintain it and publish the details. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Beckenham that this is a deliberate, staged process with proper safeguards.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked whether the provisions comply with the EU directive on data protection, and I take great delight in telling him that they do.

Mrs. Lait: We got almost as close as it is possible to get to having an amendment accepted. I am sorry that we will not have a published list, short though it might be. Obviously, by trawling through the House of Commons

Library in due course we will all be able to work out with whom the Government have bilateral agreements. In fact, we may add to the cost to the public purse and table questions, which would probably be a more expensive way to get the answer. On the basis of the Minister's reassurance and clarification, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

Loss OF BENEFIT FOR COMMISSION OF BENEFIT OFFENCES

Mr. Webb: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 30, leave out clause 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 12, leave out line 20.

No. 18, in page 12, line 24, after "any", insert "state".

No. 4, in clause 8, page 13, line 3, leave out clause 8.

No. 5, in clause 9, page 14, line 8, leave out clause 9.

No. 6, in clause 10, page 15, line 18, leave out clause 10.

No. 7, in clause 11, page 15, line 36, leave out clause 11.

No. 8, in clause 12, page 16, line 18, leave out clause 12.

No. 9, in clause 13, page 17, line 1, leave out clause 13.

No. 1, in clause 20, page 23, line 11, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (1) to bring section 7 into force before a period of two years has elapsed from the date on which this Act is passed.'.

No. 10, in clause 21, page 23, line 20, leave out—
'7, 10, 11, 12(3), 13'

Mr. Webb: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the other main part of the Bill, which relates to benefit sanctions. It may appear that we have gone a little crazy in tabling amendments to delete clauses, but essentially we want to remove clause 7, and as it is referred to throughout the remainder of the Bill, it would not have made sense if we did not seek to delete the rest of the Bill too. Clause 7 is the nub of our concerns, as hon. Members present will know well.
I shall deal first with the amendments that make more modest changes. Amendment No. 2 is the most modest and deals with our desire to remove the threat of sanction from those who are successfully prosecuted twice for war pension fraud offences. Amendment No. 1 seeks to delay the implementation of clause 7 and, by implication, the remainder of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will be hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak to that amendment. Amendment No. 3 is obviously our preferred route, which is to remove clause 7 from the Bill altogether.
The House will be aware that we discussed briefly in Committee the matter dealt with in amendment No. 2. I expressed the concern, which had been voiced in the other place, that war pensions are on the list of benefits for which a fraud offence committed twice leads to a


sanction, but retirement pensions are not. When I raised that point on Second Reading, the Minister of State, who has kindly explained why he cannot be with us, chose to imply, tongue in cheek, that I wanted to bring retirement pensions within the scope of the clause. Of course I want war pensions to be removed, and that is what the amendment would do.
In our Committee deliberations on 9 April the Minister of State gave some information about war pension fraud that we had been unaware of, when he said:
I may be undermining my case, but I want to be as open and frank as possible: six cases of fraud were detected, but there were no prosecutions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 April 2001; c. 79.]
Hardly anyone ever gets done for war pension fraud—there are only six cases in recent memory and none of those led to a prosecution. Yet the provision on war pensions would be enacted only if a person were prosecuted twice. Something that seems not to happen at all would have to happen twice if the provision were to come into force.
One might say that although such prosecutions never happen, it does no harm to have such a provision in the Bill, but it is clear that war pensioners' organisations took offence at the suggestion that there was war pension fraud. As the Bill includes war pensions but not retirement pensions, there is some suggestion that retirement pensioners are deemed to be above fraud but war pensioners are not. Our judgment is that if a provision gives offence to a group who deserve our respect and achieves no practical purpose whatsoever, it should not be included. It achieves nothing.
Ministers are fond of saying that such measures send signals, but it is far from clear to whom this provision sends a signal. Presumably, it sends a signal to the six people who have committed war pension fraud, although none of the cases was considered sufficiently serious for the person to be prosecuted. To give offence to a significant group to whom this country owes a great debt for the purpose of sending a signal to, at best, six people, none of whom would be affected by the provision anyway, seems absurd. I hope that, in an end-of-term spirit, the Minister will look sympathetically on this modest change, which is unlikely to have any effect on the Government's finances or on benefit fraud but which will remove a source of offence to Britain's war pensioner community.
Amendment No. 3 deals with the substantive issue, as it would delete clause 7 from the Bill; the other amendments follow from that. I do not want to go over old ground again and repeat the debate that we had in Committee. I shall, however, summarise the key distinction between us, the Government and, probably, the Conservatives. We are far from the position that the Minister of State sought to parody when he introduced the notion of benefit fraudsters as lovable rogues; we have not used that term, and would never use it. All three parties are united in the view that benefit fraud is serious and needs to be reduced and stamped out. Indeed, that is why we shall not oppose the Bill on Third Reading. There is no difference between us on that.
I hope, though, that we can have a mature debate in the House on sentencing policy. When different parties debating a home affairs Bill agree that something is a crime, but do not know how severe a sentence should be,

I hope that nobody says that one party is a friend of the criminal just because it thinks it appropriate to have a longer or shorter sentence. It is a matter of appropriateness, and that is what we are debating now. We are not debating whether something is right or wrong; the question is: what is the appropriate sentence?
The Government believe that, in cases of two strikes—two convictions for benefit fraud—it is appropriate to deprive people of part of their income. The biggest problem with that, however, is that it impacts not just on the individuals themselves, but on their dependants, including their children. An unanswered question from our earlier deliberations concerns the fact that the Government have pledged to abolish child poverty. I submit that any child living in a sanctioned household is, at the very least, at risk of poverty. An innocent child, whom we do not hold responsible for the actions of his or her parents, will be living below the poverty line in such a household. How can the Government's stated aim of abolishing child poverty be consistent with putting a child's household below the poverty line? We have not had an answer to that point and I do not suppose that we will, as there is none.
The second problem is the effect of the sanction. The Under-Secretary will say that the Government do not really want to use the sanction because, in practice, there will probably be a few hundred cases. She will say that the Government want to send a signal; they do not want the sanction to be used. Clearly, however, it is envisaged that it will be used in, say, 500 cases. What effect will forcing people below the breadline have on their subsequent behaviour? Is it clear that it is in society's interests for people not to have enough money to make ends meet? If someone has already transgressed the law not once, but twice, what effect will it have if we then find them stealing or doing something like that to make ends meet? It is not clear that that form of punishment is in society's interests at all. We object to the clause for the way in which it affects those incidental to the crime.

Mr. Pickles: I read the hon. Gentleman's contribution in Committee and have listened to him most carefully. So that I am clear, will he say whether Liberal Democrat Members believe that everyone has a right to benefit, regardless of behaviour?

Mr. Webb: We believe that an appropriate punishment for misbehaviour should not deprive people of subsistence. Obviously, we do not oppose putting people in prison for serious offences, but when they are there, they should not be deprived of food, clothing and shelter. Indeed, prisons provide all those things. People can be deprived of their liberty for something extremely serious, but are granted food, clothing and shelter. It is therefore anomalous that, if they do something else that we object to, but which does not warrant a custodial sentence—or, at least, in many cases does not get one—we should think it appropriate to deprive them of money needed for basic subsistence.
As members of society, people have a right to basic subsistence. For society to punish people by depriving them of basic subsistence is inhumane; for their dependants, it is particularly inhumane. If, for example, community service were used to penalise repeat offenders, that would penalise individuals without penalising their dependants or forcing households below the poverty line.


If a custodial sentence were deemed appropriate for a serial offender, one could debate whether its effect on dependants was better or worse than getting by with no money. However, a humane society should not respond to what, admittedly, is serious crime by depriving people of the basics of life.

Angela Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the only people who are going to commit benefit fraud are those with no money whatever?

Mr. Webb: No, of course not; that is an absurd suggestion. We are suggesting that the sanction policy will leave people below the breadline. In any given week, people already have fixed costs that they cannot avoid. For example, people have to pay their housing costs or else they lose their home, and they have to pay for their gas, electricity and so on. Once all those necessities have been paid for, the amount of discretionary spending may be extremely limited and it gets squeezed.
We have all heard stories of parents on a tight budget who forgo their meals to make sure that their children can eat. Basics such as food get squeezed because many household bills must be paid, come what may. I am therefore rather puzzled by the Under-Secretary's intervention. The intention of the policy is that people will be left below the benefit line, which—especially bearing in mind the children—is not an appropriate way for the state to punish people who transgress. Other forms of punishment are more humane and appropriate for that sort of offence.
In a moment, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will seek to explain our thinking in trying to delay the provisions—if that is possible—and will look at the effects of other sanctions in the benefit system. Naturally, our preference is for these measures not to be in the Bill at all, and we wish to persuade the Government that the offence given to war pensioners through the inclusion of the measure in the Bill achieves no useful purpose and only gives offence. It would be to everyone's benefit if it were removed.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said that very little would be achieved by clause 7, which was largely symbolic. That is the entire purpose of the Bill. I do not think for one moment that very much will be achieved by clause 7. The rhetoric of the Under-Secretary and the Minister of the State is quite different from the rhetoric that we heard when the Bill was first announced; the Prime Minister made great play of the clause and the policy of "two strikes and out". I recall that the departmental press release led with that item. However, the hard truth is that the provision is not likely to hit more than 500 people a year. Frankly, I doubt that the figures will ever reach that level, as the problem of reoffending is relatively small.
We support the clause on the basis of the assurances that the Under-Secretary has given. On Second Reading and in Committee, she was pressed on a number of occasions to say whether the provision conformed to the European convention on human rights. We are now a signatory to various ECHR protocols and it is part of our law. The Under-Secretary said consistently that we should put our trust in her; she had taken legal advice,

and she could give us an assurance. The Opposition remain remarkably unconvinced by that argument. We do not believe that the provision will pass scrutiny in the courts, and we are worried about that because, in a few years' time, when we have been in government for a couple of years, we will get the rap. We will find ourselves having to go to the High Court to try to defend those systems. Those who introduced them will either have retired or be in opposition. We shall wait and see.
7 pm
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Northavon on war pensions. There is more than a tinge of post-modern irony in wishing to include them in the Bill. I cannot see the logic in applying the provisions to war pensioners and, frankly, it makes the Bill seem ridiculous. There is exactly the same logic in excluding war pensioners as there is in excluding state pensioners—very few of either category commit fraud. The hon. Member for Northavon said that there have been no prosecutions in the past six months and that there have been only six cases, but he did not say—out of charity, I suspect—that the Government do not know the figures.
The Under-Secretary has said that no study has been undertaken to ascertain the number of people involved, so let us assume that it is ludicrously low and that there is much more war pensions fraud than we think. Instead of six, the figure might be eight or nine, or it might even reach double figures. We are discussing not "one strike and you're out" cases, but repeat offenders whose involvement might run to 10 cases a year, although I doubt whether there would be even one. Why include the provision?
I doubt whether even the most low-brow television soap opera with flagging viewing figures would develop a story line suggesting as credible a repeat fraud offence by a war pensioner. There is no reason to include the provision, which demeans the Bill by its very presence, so I have a lot of sympathy with amendment No. 2, which has been tabled by the Liberals.
Our amendment, No. 18, would clarify the retirement pensions issue by inserting the word "state". I am sure that the measure is intended to cover state retirement pensions, but I would like an explanation of why that word is not included.
In reply to the question whether the Liberal Democrats support a universal right to benefit, the hon. Member for Northavon gave me a number of examples. In fairness, I think that he was saying yes. It does not seem to matter to the Liberal Democrats how the recipient has behaved or how much and how many times he has defrauded.

Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles: I am about to tell a rather good joke at the hon. Gentleman's expense.

Mr. Webb: rose—

Mr. Pickles: I shall take the intervention first.

Mr. Webb: I do not want to ruin the hon. Gentleman's timing, but to clarify the point I should say that we are certainly not querying punishment for benefit fraud.


Indeed, I referred to community service and imprisonment. Clearly, people who are in prison lose their benefit, so we are not saying that entitlement should be retained come what may, but we are questioning whether removing benefit from someone living in the community is the right penalty.

Mr. Pickles: That was most helpful. I read the exchanges in Committee between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State, which at times seemed a little bad tempered. The hon. Gentleman is a very reasonable man, so I cannot understand why the Minister of State was so beastly to him.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I can.

Mr. Pickles: No doubt the Whip can, but I am a more tolerant chap.
I would not want to put words in the mouth of the Liberal Democrats, but they seem to be suggesting a strongly worded reprimand as a sanction—a cup of tea and an inquiry as to whether the recipient is getting enough benefit. In truth, I can see the Focus headline: "Liberal Democrats wag finger at fraudster", or "Fraudster told by top Lib Dem that he has been very, very naughty". Their response is wholly inappropriate.
I recall the hon. Member for Northavon quoting on Second Reading Mr. Paul Cavadino, director of policy at the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. He was wise to do so, because those remarks sum up the objections to the Bill. The quote runs to only three sentences, so I shall read it into the record:
Any change should be based on improving the likelihood of those on community sentences turning their back on crime and leading law-abiding lives. Withdrawing benefits from those not completing a community sentence order would be counter- productive. Without some other means of income, it is inevitable that some will fall back on crime to make ends meet.
There is nothing inevitable about people committing crime—that is the politics of Danegeld. Why offer bribes to fraudsters to prevent them from committing crime? We should not say, "Here's a nice handout. Take it, and please don't commit crime."
I see the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on the Government Front Bench. He and I know areas of the north of England that are racked with poverty, but we also know that people in those areas do not habitually commit crime. They do not commit crime because they have pride in their neighbourhoods, their lives and their families. Nobody is forced to commit crime; the Government are right that no one has an automatic right to benefits; and we agree with them that there is a contract between the state and the recipient.
For the sake of time, I shall risk oversimplifying the matter. Some people may seek work or offer continuing care as part of that contract, but riding through it all is an obligation to be honest in order to qualify for benefit. The argument about serious crime and providing clothing and food for murderers is spurious, and I do not accept that the measure represents double punishment.
If a person applied for a grant to defraud the taxpayer, we would rightly refuse it, so why should fraudsters have their life style rewarded with continued full benefit? After all, the measure will apply for only 13 weeks; it is only a part-provision and other measures exist. Allowing people

to continue to receive benefits when they have openly defrauded the benefits system—not once, but twice—represents laughing in the face of that system.
The measure may be symbolic, it may not have vast effect and only a few people may be affected by it. Nevertheless, I believe that it will continue the establishment of an important principle: there is no automatic right to benefit and there is a contract between the citizen and the state in respect of honesty.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 1, but I must first pick up on a couple of comments made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He referred to the exchanges in Committee on 9 April and, in particular, to the Minister of State's attempt to parody or caricature the position taken by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman did his best to do the same.
We are not in the business of rewarding cheats. Like Labour and Conservative Members, Liberal Democrats believe that we have to bear down on benefit fraud, but we also believe that the punishment should be appropriate and targeted on the offender. It should not be so indiscriminate as to impact on the family, as if guilt by association justifies applying a sanction that will result in difficulties and hardship not only for the individual, who may deserve to face hardship, but for his relatives. We have therefore tabled amendment No. 1, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said, we would much prefer the clause not to see the light of day.
We believe that a delay is necessary because the Government should surely take time not only to reflect, but, better still, to gather the evidence on which they want to justify their policy. There is a lack of evidence to sustain the case that the measure represents an effective means not only of sending a signal, but of genuinely changing behaviour. There are questions, which my hon. Friend raised in Committee and on Second Reading, as to the knock-on, collateral damage that will be done to the families of benefit cheats. It is wrong that families and children should be made to suffer for the sins and omissions of parents who are tempted to defraud the system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon referred in Committee to the limited research that has already been done on the matter by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security. That work is set out in research report No. 86, which evaluated jobseeker's allowance. I believe that Ministers have relied on that report at least as evidence to show that they have researched these matters, but the important thing is that it was based on a sample of only 30 people. That is the basis on which their policy is being built. When one considers what those 30 people said and the change of behaviour that was involved, one sees that the evidence does not support the Government's policy.
That is why we propose a novel idea to the House and to the Government: evidence-based policy. There should be some evidence before the Government act in a way that will do harm. That is why we are saying that they should delay the measure for two years. Why two years? We believe that, if the matter is to be investigated effectively, time will be needed to set up the necessary research and to track the impact of the policies and


sanctions that are already in place in respect of jobseeker's allowance and the Child Support Agency. We must track their impact over time to investigate their effects on families and so on. Finally, at the end of such a project, there must be a proper evaluation.
As I said, we believe that benefit cheats should be punished, but that the children, who will be innocent of the crime, should not be punished with their parents. That is why we have said that benefits sanctions are about seeking retribution. We do not believe that that is the role of the state, although we think that it does have a role in seeking restitution and rehabilitation. That is the proper balance, but the Bill is unbalanced and is unfair and unjust as a result. It is entirely right to demand that people who defraud the system should repay the money, pay fines and give community service, and to ensure that habitual fraudsters serve time; but it is wrong of the House to agree to an unfounded, unresearched and ill-conceived measure without even having the grace to pause and conduct proper research. I hope that the House will consider accepting amendment No. 1, even if it is minded to reject the other Liberal Democrat amendments.

Angela Eagle: The amendment would either remove the two-strikes provision or delay it for two years. In effect, the delay would be longer, because the two strikes must be built up. It is reasonable to assume that it would be unusual for somebody to receive two convictions for benefit fraud in a single year, so the amendment would delay the biting of the two-strikes sanctions even further, and it will not surprise the House to learn that the Government oppose it.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) almost argued in his welcome last-ditch appearance in our proceedings that the Bill was modest. He seemed to hint that he wanted us to go further. However, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was almost apocalyptic about the poverty that the two-strikes sanction would cause to innocent members of the families of benefit fraudsters. I do not underestimate the effect of sanctions, and the hon. Gentleman might have had a point if the sanctions involved in the two-strikes process, which is set out from clause 7 onwards, removed all benefit, but they apply only to the personal elements of benefits and are designed specifically to operate alongside a hardship scheme, which ensures that innocent members of a family unit whose head has been involved in benefit fraud are appropriately protected. He was guilty of the grossest exaggeration in his portrayal of some of the effects of the two-strikes sanction.
7.15 pm
Last year, more than 22,000 people were sanctioned for cheating the benefit system, and almost half of them were subsequently convicted of benefit fraud. On the hard core of repeat offenders, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar rightly referred to 500 people; indeed, about 500 people a year would fall under the two-strikes provisions. The intention of the provisions is to deter those who persist in repeat defrauding of the benefit system, but never come across any sort of sanction.
I can give some examples of the sort of cases that are involved, some of which are mind boggling. For example, one person was prosecuted for working while claiming

and was then done for stealing and cashing a relative's child benefit book. Undeterred, that person was then prosecuted again for attempting to claim jobseeker's allowance to which he was not entitled. The people whom we are targeting steal vast sums of money that could be better spent elsewhere on more deserving causes such as the alleviation of child poverty.
Two people were recently convicted because of their part in a ring involving stolen girocheques, which caused an estimated loss to public funds of £670,000. In another case, a woman admitted making false benefit claims after 11 benefit order books and documentation relating to several other different identities were found at her address. The overpayment was calculated at more than £140,000.
At the other end of the scale, a man was recently convicted of stealing from a blind friend a disability living allowance order book and girocheques worth £1,200. In another case, a man who had previously been convicted of order book fraud admitted on arrest to obtaining his ex-partner's order books and advancing the dates on them. He also admitted to a series of irregularities covering a further seven order books and a girocheque.

Mr. Pickles: Those examples illustrate the utter callousness of people who defraud the state, but surely the Under-Secretary's remarks do not apply to war pensions. Is not it better to concentrate on fraudsters such as those whom she describes and not to establish powers for war pensions that have not been taken in relation to state pensions?

Angela Eagle: I shall deal with the war pensions aspect of the amendments in due course. I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I would prefer to do so when I am speaking about the relevant aspects of the amendments.
The Department does not prosecute in cases where there is no public interest in doing so. The people whom the sanction will hit are the cheats who systematically abuse the system for their own gain, not only once but again and again. It is intended not only to provide a deterrent, but to send a signal saying that such repeat behaviour will not be tolerated in the system. I hope that it works as a deterrent. Paradoxically, one of the signs that suggest that it might be working is that there are few repeat offenders. People realise that the game is up and that they cannot continue cruelly and callously to milk the system. They must realise that cheating the benefit system and stealing money from the most vulnerable people in society, who rely on the welfare system, ensures that there is less money to go round for those who are needy. That is why we must consider a viable deterrent. The Government believe that the two-strikes sanction is an appropriate way of dealing with the problem.
The hon. Member for Northavon expressed in exaggerated terms his worries about the effect on the families of people who have committed the offences. The Government intend that the sanctions should hit the people who were responsible for the fraud, rather than their innocent family members. The sanctions affect 40 per cent. of the personal allowance, or 20 per cent. of it if there are vulnerable people in the family, which is the case when the claimant or a family member is pregnant or seriously ill.
Those sanctions are not new; they have been a feature of the benefits system for a long time. However, we are extending them to those who systematically defraud. Housing and council tax benefits will be unaffected when the claimant has an underlying entitlement to income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. If there is no such underlying entitlement, we intend to reduce housing and council tax benefits by an amount equivalent to 40 per cent. of a single person's allowance or 20 per cent. if the claimant or a family member is pregnant or seriously ill.
The opposition of the hon. Member for Northavon to sanctions is well known. I know that I will not persuade him to change his mind, but I should like him to consider and accept that child benefit will never be withdrawn, that housing and council tax benefits will continue to be paid even when jobseeker's allowance or income support is sanctioned, and that premiums payable for the family and children will not be reduced. Only the personal allowance will be affected. Free prescriptions and school meals will remain available even when a benefit is sanctioned. All those protections will ensure that innocent members of families, about whom the hon. Gentleman is so worried, will not suffer.
The hon. Gentleman must accept that benefit sanctions are designed to deter persistent defrauding of the system. They therefore need to be tough. However, I hope that he will also accept that we have attempted to strike a balance and provide protection by granting access to hardship schemes. Those affected will, after all, have been convicted twice. I expect us to revert to those matters in future, but I cannot accept amendments that would tear the Bill in half and remove the sanctions.
I expect us to repeat some of the discussions that we held in Committee on war pensions. However, the amendments would have the unintended effect of preventing war pensions from being a disqualifying benefit. That would mean that fraud against it would not count as a strike under the two-strikes provisions. The amendments would also stop war pensions being a sanctionable benefit. If that happened, people could target war pensions for fraud. I suspect that the hon. Member for Northavon did not intend that.
War pensioners are decent and law abiding, and the money that they receive reflects the debt that society owes them. I can therefore understand the reasons for some hon. Members' reservations about their inclusion in a fraud-related provision. However, we believe that it would be inappropriate to exclude them. Opposition Members will not agree with me, but I shall explain why we remain of that opinion.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Northavon argued that if there was a good case for excluding retirement pension on the ground that there is almost no evidence of fraud, that also applied to war pensions. However, we are considering not merely numbers but whether a benefit should be sanctionable or has the potential for fraud.
The retirement pension is not a sanctionable benefit, and the majority of war pensioners are now over pension age. However, there are big differences between the rules for the two benefits. Those for the retirement pension are simple. Anyone who is over a certain age and has paid contributions receives it. It is difficult for someone to

commit fraud against it. However, that does not apply to war pensions, and entitlement depends on other issues, such as income.

Mr. Burstow: I am listening closely to the explanation for retaining war pensions in the measure. Have the Government considered using regulations instead of specifying war pensions in the Bill? Such an approach permits the addition of benefits over time. If the Minister accepts that there is little fraud against war pensions, why not consider using regulations and removing the provision? The Government would thus not insult war pensioners.

Angela Eagle: We are not insulting war pensioners by stating in a measure that it is possible to commit fraud against war pensions. I agree that only a trickle of war pensioners have committed fraud, none of which has been sanctioned. We have been open about the figures in our debates. We do not prosecute when it is against the public interest. However, it is possible to commit fraud against war pensions. Including that possibility in the measure does not mean that the Government claim that all war pensioners defraud the system.

Mr. Pickles: The Minister is right to say that the clause is symbolic and conveys a message. However, including war pensions conveys a bad message for the Government. I am confident that she has examined the figures, so will she answer a simple question? How many war pensioners in the past five years, or the past year, have committed the offence twice?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman asks a question to which, like those in referendums, he knows the answer. In the past year or so, there have been six cases of war pensioners defrauding the system. None has been prosecuted and none has so far repeated the offence. As I said earlier, we have been as open as possible about the figures. However, that does not mean that the provision should not be included in the Bill. I emphasise that the Government do not claim that war pensioners are fraudsters, but we want to allow the Bill to extend as far as necessary in case there is a problem in future.
Amendment No. 18 uses the term "state retirement pension". It is widely used but has no meaning in law. The reference to "any retirement pension" may appear too broad, and I suspect that that led to the amendment. However, it should be considered in the context of "disqualifying benefit" in clause 7(8). It defines sanctionable benefits as
any disqualifying benefit other than
and lists the exceptions, including "any retirement pension".
Subsection (8) defines a disqualifying benefit as
any benefit under the Jobseekers Act 1995
or its Northern Ireland equivalent, or
any benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992",
its Northern Ireland equivalent or "any war pension". The Bill therefore refers to any retirement pension that is paid under the 1992 Act.
We commonly describe those pensions as "state retirement pensions". The phrase covers the basic pension, the new second-tier pension or the old state


earnings-related pension scheme. Other pensions, such as private and public sector occupational pensions, are not paid under the 1992 Act. There is therefore no need to tighten the definition because, perhaps despite appearances, the Bill makes the necessary provision.
We strongly believe that clause 7 and the two-strikes provision are important. We therefore oppose Liberal Democrat Members' attempts to remove them. The two-strikes requirement sends an important signal that we will not tolerate continued defrauding of the benefit system and that we will continue to search for methods of protecting public funds from people who believe that they can defraud the system indiscriminately. All the amendments are unacceptable and I hope that they will be withdrawn.

Mr. Webb: The Minister, with her usual prescience, guessed right: we are unconvinced by the responses. The best that the Government can do on war pensions, which united the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, is to say that if we squeeze other parts of the system, pressure will be brought to bear on war pensions and that that will lead to a mysterious surge in serial, bogus war pension applications. That seems practically absurd. Regrettably, this is a case of a Department that, at this end of the building, does not accept amendments to its Bills—however flawed they may be—on principle, regardless of the merits of the arguments.
7.30 pm
On the question whether the sanctions provisions should be in the Bill at all, I am grateful to the Minister for making at least some attempt to respond to the question, "What about the children?" She mentioned hardship provisions, and said that the sanctions would affect only the personal allowance, not the other parts of the benefit. However, she seems to be holding two mutually inconsistent positions. The first is that the sanctions are going to hurt and will be a deterrent. She believes that they will put people off, because people will know that if they are bad boys, the sanctions will hurt. Then she says that they will not hurt the children because there will be hardship provisions.
Those two statements cannot simultaneously be true. Either the sanctions are not going to hurt, in which case everything that the Minister claims for the Bill will not work; or they will hurt, in which case they will also hurt the children. It seems to me that, within a benefit unit, when the only income coming in is being paid to the claimant, about whom we are arguing—

Angela Eagle: rose—

Mr. Webb: This is very exciting; I give way to the Minister.

Angela Eagle: What I have tried to say is that there are protections for the children, and that there is also a balance to be struck between getting the deterrence right and indiscriminately hurting the innocent. The idea is that the provisions strike that balance, which is what I was attempting to get across to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady did, indeed, use the word "balance". However, the question is whether any

diminution of the living standards of a child is acceptable. Can we go any way down that road when trying to strike a balance with the other things that we are trying to achieve? The rights and welfare of the child should be inviolate in these circumstances, and the punishment should not leave a household, or benefit unit, below the poverty line.
The Minister seemed to suggest that, because one part of the total amount of benefit was being sanctioned, it could somehow be ring-fenced and that the welfare of the child would not be prejudiced because the money intended for the adult would go down, but the money intended for the children would not. It is clearly an absurd notion that the flow of funds into a household can somehow be ring-fenced. Although one part of the money is nominally paid in respect of the adult and another part in respect of the children, in practice that money all goes into one pot in that household. As I said earlier, the first thing that happens is that the necessities are paid for. Necessities such as food and bills do not go away. What is left is then spent on what the household needs.

Angela Eagle: Given that, after a first conviction, an individual will receive plenty of warning not to do it again, and be told what will happen if he or she is convicted of a second offence, does the hon. Gentleman think that that individual should take any personal responsibility for his or her future actions and the effect that they may have on his or her children?

Mr. Webb: I absolutely think that they should take such responsibility. The question is if they breach that personal responsibility, who should suffer—the individual or the children? The Minister appears to be happy that the children would suffer as well as the parent. She has said precisely that. She has said that the appropriate penalty is a loss of income to the household. All the members of the household will suffer. They are not ring-fenced. A person who does something that we all agree is wrong, and who has committed the crime twice, is presumably not the kind of person to say, "Well, I'll keep the money for the kids and make sure that they are all right, while I take it on the chin." Indeed, the contrary would be the case.

Angela Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous and giving way again.
All through the debate, the hon. Gentleman has said that he is happy for these people to go to prison. Does not he think that household incomes and children might suffer when that happens, probably in a far worse way than would be caused by a benefit sanction lasting 13 weeks?

Mr. Webb: So far as I am aware—the Minister may correct me on this point—the spouse and children of someone in prison retain full benefit entitlement proportionate to the size of the family that remains to be supported. [Interruption.] An intervention from a sedentary position suggests that prison would impose a bigger financial penalty.
Let us assume that a person—to make life simple, let us say a father—is in prison and has gone out of the household. The benefits system determines how much money the mother and children need to live on. Unless the Department of Social Security is saying that the benefit rate for what is left under the provisions is enough


for a family to live on, that family will have a better standard of living than if it had an extra mouth to feed and a less than proportionate increase in benefit. Hon. Members have not grasped the point that a family whose father is in prison will have one mouth fewer to feed, but under the provisions it will have lost the sanctionable part of the money. Materially, its living standards would, therefore, be higher in the former case.
Imprisonment is an extreme penalty. I mentioned community service. Assuming that we consider community service to be a penalty—there might be those on the Conservative Benches who do not—why would not it be an appropriate response? It would penalise only the person who had committed the crime, not their children.
The Government have said that they want to abolish child poverty: they want no children—zero—in poverty. The measures, applied to a sanctioned family, will leave it in poverty, below the benefit level. So long as the legislation remains on the statute book and is being applied to families with children, the Government will never achieve their stated goal of abolishing child poverty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) suggested that we should delay the implementation of the provisions. In a slightly convoluted argument, the Minister suggested that a delay of two years would be a delay of more than two years because it would take time for things to get going. However, even if the Bill became law tomorrow, it would take time to get going, so my hon. Friend's proposal would entail implementation two years later than the Government's implementation and no longer. That time could be better used to examine the effect on children, for example, of sanctions that are already in place, before introducing any more.
The Government have cited one piece of research that they have carried out. There is no evidence that that research has informed the way in which the sanctions are structured. The Minister has not tried to argue that. The Government have done some research and, so far as I can see, ignored it. The evidence is that families, and particularly children, suffer in these circumstances.
There is clearly a fundamental difference of principle between ourselves and the other two parties. It would probably be fruitless to divide the House on this issue, but we shall certainly continue to campaign—in this Parliament and beyond—for the principle that punishing an innocent person for the guilt of another is not a humane punishment policy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I apologise for my absence during the last part of the previous debate. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the reasons. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), for dealing with the last group of amendments.
This is a short Bill, which I described earlier as a technical adjustment of the Government's anti-fraud measures. It is a modest measure, but a necessary one. Each year the Department loses at least £2 billion through benefit

fraud. That is more than the cost of administration of the Benefits Agency, which is part of the Department of Social Security. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that that level of fraud is unacceptable. The Bill will definitely help to reduce those losses and help the Department to achieve its targets for reducing fraud and error.
The Bill contains a range of measures. It is not necessary to list them in great detail. The key measure will require banks, building societies and other institutions to provide information when there is a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or intends to commit benefit fraud. The Bill contains strict safeguards to ensure that that power is not abused. The code of practice will be properly consulted on, as I said earlier. It will be the guiding light under which the powers in the Bill are operated and it will be able to be used in court cases.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security said in the earlier debate, there is a balance to be struck. We could have left things as they were, although they were unacceptable, or we could have taken draconian measures. Instead, we have taken the modest measures in the Bill and will use our best endeavours to attack the level of fraud with which we have to cope.
The Bill also contains a power to exchange information with social security administrations in other countries to combat transnational benefit fraud. This is a limited, modest measure that will rightly be curtailed by proper Government-to-Government agreements. The Bill also introduces the "two strikes and you're out" sanction.
We make no great claims for the Bill, which is designed to be a deterrent. We do not think that it will affect more than 500 people a year. We do not know how many of those will have children, but the fact remains that it is designed to be a deterrent. We must be seen to be taking some measures, in the public interest, against the hard core of repeat benefit fraud offenders.
The Bill contains a power to apply civil penalties swiftly when an employer has colluded with an employee's benefit fraud. Such collusion is serious, but we want to be able to offer the employers concerned a quick civil penalty as an alternative to prosecution. We think that that will be in their interests, while also—we hope—acting as a deterrent. The amount of evidence must be the same, and the case will be dealt with by means of either prosecution or acceptance of the civil penalty. There is no question of there being no proper investigation of collusive employers.
We make no major claim for the Bill. We do not suggest that it will eliminate benefit fraud. As in all walks of life, there will always be crooks and fraudsters. We believe, however, that the Bill constitutes a reasonable attack on the current scale of benefit fraud in closing some of the more obvious loopholes that we have encountered in recent years. I hope that it will be given an unopposed Third Reading.

Mrs. Lait: I was concerned for a moment, because I feared that we would not have a Third Reading speech from the Minister, and with it an opportunity to offer the ultimate valedictory wishes—or is it penultimate?

Mr. Rooker: Final.

Mrs. Lait: That means that there will be no social security questions on 14 May, which tells many of us many things. We are grateful to the Minister.
Discussion of this Bill has been interesting, easy and amiable. The cast of characters has been similar to that of previous debates. Perhaps the only moment of excitement occurred during debate on the last group of amendments, when the words "benefits unit" were used instead of "households", "people" or "individuals". It struck me then that the social policy professor, rather than the politician, was coming to the fore.
We have debated all the issues at some length. In one or two respects we shall still want reassurance in the form of Government action, although of course we never know: by 7 June it might be our action that is required rather than that of the present Government, in which event we might implement the Bill and ensure the provision of effective fraud prevention measures.
I have just noticed that, according to the television monitor, I should be talking about NHS appointments and political bias—in Westminster Hall, moreover. The monitor is clearly very confused. I do not plan to talk about political bias in NHS appointments, although it is obvious that it exists; I shall talk about the Social Security Fraud Bill, and the various matters that we shall monitor to ensure that the Government's intentions are implemented.
The Government have given me some reassurances about how closely they will listen to consultation, and about their negotiation—which we hope will take place—on the code of practice. As the Minister said, the code of practice is the key to many of the provisions relating to authorised officers, single points of contact, trawling and costs. We hope that a Government, or a Department, may be generous enough to produce a list of overseas countries with which contracts will be exchanged. We hope it might even be possible for the Government to see their way to becoming a member of CIFAS. We also hope very much that consultation will be productive, and that the fears and concerns expressed by various organisations will be dealt with. We trust that that will involve negotiation leading to agreement, rather than a stand-off.
The Bill makes a mockery of the programme motion system. It has gone through its stages largely as a result of agreement, although there may have been disagreement on certain points. There has been no trouble at all. The fact that we should have been debating Third Reading between 9 pm and 10 pm shows that the programme motion system is far too rigid, and that we would be better off with the old system.
I have no intention of opposing the Bill. We have supported its principles; we are just sad that it has taken the Government four years to produce them. We hope very much that, modest measure as it is—at this point I recall Winston Churchill's comment that Clement Attlee was a modest man with much to be modest about—the Bill will achieve what the Government want it to achieve.

Mr. Webb: I am not sure that I can emulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) by being in two places at once, but I shall do my best.
I think I am right in saying that the Bill we are discussing now is identical—apart from the reference to privilege—to the Bill that we discussed on Second Reading. However, the House will be relieved to know that I will not repeat my Second Reading speech.
It is symptomatic and regrettable, as I said in Committee, that the Department's strategy on Bills does not involve seeing the contributions of Opposition parties as a chance to improve them. Once Bills have been to another place, where the Government are forced to listen to the other side, the strategy is to steamroller them through. Debates such as the one on war pensions illustrate the fact that this Bill could have been made better, even without the sacrifice of any great points of principle. It is a pity that the opportunity was not taken.
As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats will not oppose Third Reading. Notwithstanding the parodies of our position that we have heard, we are as committed as anyone to the elimination of benefit fraud. As we see the passing of new powers for the Government, it strikes me that they have failed to use existing powers. The fact that they can use those powers to force local authorities to crack down on fraud but have done so only once in the past 12 months, in the case of Northampton borough council, suggests that when seeking new powers Governments might be asked to use the powers that they have rather more effectively. Why that has not happened in this case remains a mystery to me.
We hope that the obtaining of third-party information will help to identify fraud. We have yet to be convinced that the seeking of some three quarters of a million bits of information each year can be policed very effectively, even if only a limited number of people are doing it. If I were an authorised officer, I could cover my tracks fairly effectively in the midst of a blitz of requests for information, with one or two rogue ones. I am still not convinced that we shall not have to return to the supervision of authorised officers. Fresh in our minds is the debate about sanctions, which I will not rehearse but which constitutes our principal misgiving about the Bill.
My colleagues and I wish the Minister well in his retirement. I am sure that long before I was a Member he had contributed a great deal to the procedures of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

BROADCASTING

That the draft Broadcasting (Subtitling) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 3rd April, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft Advisory Centre on WTO Law (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 10th April, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

CRIMINAL LAW

That the draft Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions relating to delegated legislation.

Ordered,

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

That the Education Standards Fund (England) Regulations 2001 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

That the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2001 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

That the Financing of Maintained Schools (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Motorway Construction (EU Policy)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am sure that the House will be pleased that this important Adjournment debate has begun so early. It is good to see that we have a quality Minister here to reply: I assure him that I shall give him plenty of time to respond.
I once secured an Adjournment debate on English wine, which began at 4 pm. It ran for six and a half hours, and I think that Members who were present learned quite a bit about English wine, including the wines on the House of Commons wine list. They come from various parts of the country, and some excellent wines come from my constituency.
This debate is a little later than the English wine debate, but there is plenty of time—I think that there are two and a half hours or more—to amplify on the extraordinary misfortunes of my constituent. I am sure that when the Minister hears about the case, he will wish to do all that he possibly can to help my constituent. More important, the debate raises national and international issues, on which he will perhaps need time to reflect in considering what steps the British Government can take: if not before the general election, we will have an opportunity after it to deal with some of the issues that I shall raise.
A well-established principle of British law is that, when a state sequestrates land or buildings through compulsory purchase or otherwise, it pays compensation to the affected party at market value. Everyone in this country accepts that, and rightly so. However, I am advised that in France, planning permissions go through very quickly when the state wishes to carry out major infrastructure works because it offers more than the market value in order to get cracking. Roads, airports, railways, reservoirs and the like get built in record time as landowners fall over themselves to encourage the development that the Government wish to have on their property.
The payment of compensation to those affected by state-funded enterprises does not work so well in all European Union countries, particularly in some Mediterranean ones. Portugal, Spain and Greece do not offer the same protection or compensation to residents affected by infrastructure programmes that the state wishes to carry out. The idea of restitution—putting the affected party in no worse a position in monetary terms than he was in before the development—is a well-established principle in Britain. If a Government choose to drive a motorway through someone's garden, they are committed to restoring not the garden but the value of the property to which the garden is attached, providing recompense to its unfortunate owner for giving up his property. I am not sure that there is quite the same arrangement in Roman-Dutch law, or in the current laws of Romania, the Czech Republic or Estonia, but they are all new entrant countries that will inevitably apply for large tranches of EU money to modernise their infrastructure when they join the EU.
This debate is about compensation for individuals adversely affected by EU-funded projects in other member states; whether it should be paid; if so, who should pay it; the level at which it should be paid; and the


method of claiming. In Britain and other developed EU countries, the assets of individuals are protected against state sequestration, either under compulsory purchase provisions or other legislation. When roads are built, under section 282 of the Highways Act 1980, the highway authorities are empowered to fund the construction of noise barriers. The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 prescribe that residential properties exposed to levels of traffic noise in excess of 68 decibels as a result of the construction of new roads should be provided with noise insulation.
In Europe, EC directive 337/85 states that the environmental effects of public works such as new roads, including increased levels of noise, should be assessed and published as an environmental statement with legislative orders for schemes to allow public comment. I cite the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. John Wood of South Brent in the Dartmoor national park, to illustrate how the EU has stood by and allowed EU nationals and British subjects to suffer damage and loss. They saw the value of their property in Portugal nearly halved without any compensation.
The way in which Mr. Wood conducted himself in making inquiries regarding the purchase of the property in Portugal in 1987 was exemplary. He carried out inquiries with the best possible firms and spent much time there. There were no plans for any motorways at that time. The house that he bought was known as Quinta da Madeira, a 100-year-old farm house in Portuguese style set in a peaceful and tranquil idyll with wonderful views to the south taking in the coast. It was a perfect spot to retire to. Today, Mr. Wood's property is positioned like one of those castles between England and Wales that the marcher lords built: it is high on the embankment directly over the motorway, with a sheer 100 ft drop to the carriageway below. He is very careful when he opens his front door.
In January 1991, Mr. Wood received a letter from the experienced agents that he employed, Abreu and Marques, in which the senior partner stated that no developments were planned regarding building a motorway. Two months later, the director of roads stated that the motorway was already under construction and mentioned something about lost correspondence.
The IP1 motorway, as it is now known, is constructed with pre-stressed concrete, which generates far more decibels than a Bakerloo line train coming into Piccadilly Circus. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have ever been on a platform at Piccadilly Circus when a Bakerloo line train has come in, you will know that it is pretty noisy, but it is less noisy than the IP1 motorway when cars travel on the pre-stressed concrete, which went out with the ark in Britain. Hearing is believing: the noise is continuous and ever growing. I am told that, in Portugal, on warm summer evenings, as lorries pound over the surface at the speed limit or above, the noise can be heard 12 km away or more. The peace and tranquillity of the area have been shattered.
The failure of the Portuguese Government to choose an appropriate surface, such as porous asphalt—with which the Minister will be familiar—which dampens sound, or whisper concrete, as it is known, cries out for explanation. Was it to save money that they put that pre-stressed concrete down—the slabs of concrete that we saw on

bypasses in the 1960s and 1970s? Did they take the European money and say, "We will use the money we have from Europe, but we will only top it up with very little more"?
In 1991–92, the Portuguese Government told residents that the motorway would be a garden highway. Perhaps the Portuguese have a different idea of gardens because there are no trees by the motorway, and no plants by its sides. There are no flowers. As there are no sound barriers, the garden highway gives off a piercing noise day and night.
After the motorway was constructed in 1994, the noise levels were so appalling that Mr. and Mrs. Wood decided to put the home on the market. Their haven of tranquillity had turned into an unmitigated nightmare. Quinta da Madeira is a most beautiful property by all accounts. It is just the place that any of us would love to retire to, but the sound from the motorway, which is directly underneath the house, was so great that the Woods, in their retirement, could not face the prospect of living there. Therefore, they approached Hamptons International—there is no better estate agent in that area—which said that it was
a 100 year old property renovated in 1989 to a very high standard preserving many original features. Magnificent sea and country views"—
that was, of course, before the motorway had such a devastating effect.
During 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, many people viewed the house, but not one person made an offer. In July 1999, a new agency was appointed, which placed the property on the market at the 1995 price. More than 25 people viewed the house and, in January this year, the Woods received their first and only offer. Before I reveal what it was, and to keep the Minister in suspense, I shall quote the agency's words. It is an exclusive property consultancy, known as Lifestyle Properties, affiliated to none other than Sotheby's International and it reached the following conclusion:
all clients have a major reservation."—
the Minister will be able to guess what it is—
The location right next to the IP1 motorway is definitely off putting as people with a desire for a home in the Algarve do not want to live next to a four lane motorway without any sound reducing elements. We have had around 15 clients that viewed your villa. The clients have been English, Dutch and German, but were all put off by the motorway location.
We still find the asking price of £395,000 very competitive in the current market, and as discussed … without the motorway, an asking price of around £500,000 would not have been unreasonable.
The price of the property has been reduced by about a third and, moreover the property has been locked up because it cannot be used properly—unless one likes viewing cars on motorways from the top of a hill, like a marcher lord in his castle. It is the last place in which to seek peace and tranquillity.
For the past six or seven years, the property has been a dead investment. After seven years, the Woods calculated that they had lost some £250,000 of taxed earnings through no fault of their own, and despite having taken every precaution before they made the purchase. Apparently, there were some rumours in 1992 that the trans-European motorway would be built, and although it is not yet connected to Lisbon, that is the intention.
I am told that the motorway is only the first in a series of trans-European motorways, so this is a test case, and I am delighted to have plenty of time to explore it with the Minister. Such motorways will be built not only by Mediterranean European countries, but—no doubt—by all the countries that join the EU through enlargement. Mr. Wood is a victim of the process, and I am sure that the Government, in the dying days of this Parliament, will note his case as an issue that needs to be addressed.
The Government will be relieved to hear that I place no blame on them at this stage. However, they can use their influence as one of the most powerful members of the EU to see that the situation is rectified—if not for the past, then for the future.
When the Woods heard about the rumours of the planned motorway, they tried to find out its exact route from the Portuguese authorities. The EU insists on a consultation process, but in this case, apparently, it was a shabby affair and was not a consultation process as we would understand it. The conduct of the Woods could be used to illustrate a good practice manual, but the Portuguese authorities failed to consult or to listen to local residents.
The motorway will eventually stretch across the Algarve from Lisbon to Spain. The authorities were anxious to build it quickly for Expo '92, and the concrete was probably laid for that reason. Thousands of people, including British, German, Dutch and Swedish people, will have had their investments badly affected by the motorway, and noise nuisance will have taken millions of pounds off the value of the properties affected, for the Portuguese and many other EU nationals.
I have set out the problem, and I now wish to explore what can be done. It is irrelevant that the Woods are successful and attractive people, with many friends in both South Brent and the Algarve. They are popular and generous, and it is worth noting that they are not sharks or harsh—they just wanted a little place in the Algarve to which to retire.
What can be done? The Portuguese Government have been a net receiver of EU funds since 1974. I do not begrudge them that, because the money has been necessary. The EU has done a good job, and the Portuguese recognise that. However, I doubt whether the Portuguese would have embarked on the construction of the trans-European motorway but for the injection of EU funding. I visited Lisbon recently as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we were well received by Portuguese Members of Parliament and officials. We were seen as a fair and popular country with which they would like to do business. That is why the Minister's reply, which will be beamed across the Algarve, will be of especial interest, as many people see Britain as fair in such cases.
I do not begrudge the Portuguese any EU money, because it has revolutionised—if that is the right term—that country. The Portuguese economy is now very strong, and I am advised that Portugal will soon become a net contributor to the EU. That is good news. However, in granting funds for the motorway in the 1990s, the European Commission must have been guilty of neglect, indifference or both. It must have failed to inquire about the materials that would be used in the construction or to satisfy itself that no individual would suffer financial loss as a result of the construction.
Did the Commission fail to ask the right questions of the Portuguese authorities? Did it also fail to take the necessary steps to ensure that the road surface would not infringe its objectives on noise and pollution? After all, those are buzz words for the EU and a series of rules, regulations and directives about noise have been introduced since 1970. The current EU legislation on noise deals with emissions at source, mainly cars, aircraft, generators, lawn mowers, food mixers and coffee grinders. A Green Paper was published last July that outlined the action that might be taken at Community level, and set out indicators and legislative proposals. A draft directive has since been published not on the question of compensation, but on noise. The Commission ducked the issue by saying that the matter had nothing to do with it, but clearly noise emanating from a motorway built with EU funds has an EU dimension and locus.
The argument may be that compensatory awards for the impact of major infrastructure works are a matter for the member state under the umbrella of the popular term "subsidiarity". Not many people know the meaning of the word, but it appears to translate as "the EU is not responsible". It is fair enough to argue that the member state was responsible, but the Commission was negligent in failing to satisfy itself that the Portuguese had appropriate legislation to cover the issue before it granted the funds. To ensure what is called a level playing field, EU grants should not be given to a member state that does not have legislative procedures to provide at least minimum compensation for those affected by infrastructure developments that are funded by EU money. However, it is not a level playing field and the money should not have been paid until the legislation was in place.
Once that condition had been satisfied, the trans-European motorway could have been constructed in Portugal, as the Commission would have been satisfied that no individual would be adversely affected financially by its construction without being able to claim compensation. The Commission has done that in other areas by attaching conditions to its grants, so why not here?
On 9 February 1990, an article in the Algarve Resident, a local newspaper, said:
EC Suspends 10 million Destined for Trans-Algarve Highway".
This distinguished periodical goes on to say that Jacques Delors—that household name—
president of the European Community Commission has confirmed that the commission has decided to suspend financial help for the construction of the Trans-Algarve highway.
The Commission had previously agreed to give money to the project, but this aid will be cut off because the Portuguese authorities responsible (i.e. the Ministry of Public Works) have 'infringed community rights in not having had sufficient regard for the likely impact of the work on the local environment.'
This Norm, (directive 337/85) should have been written into the Portuguese Legislature, but wasn't. Because of this there were no legal guidelines for questions such as expressways, airports, and industrial pollution in Portugal, and this has led to E.E.C."—
as it then was—
intervention into this country's affairs.
In the words of the Minister of Public Works, Transport and Communications, there is "nothing for nobody" until Portugal complies with the directive.
Jacques Delors suspended the aid because Portugal did not have its house in order. Now matters have moved on, and he should not have allowed the motorway to be built


without recognising that there was a hole where the compensatory legislation ought to have been. I thought that the Minister would like to hear that interesting point.
As the EU relies on a difference basis of law from that which is applied in the United Kingdom, the Commission should have—and could still—take action in enlisting the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, to which Portugal is a signatory. The protocol deals specifically with the right of individuals to enjoy tranquillity and peace in their own property. I do not wish to limit the argument to the breach of the first protocol or to article 288/EC, which established that an individual could be successful when the Commission acted directly and caused him damage and loss as a result of its actions.
In the case of Mulder v. Council (1992) ECR 1–3061, milk producers in the Netherlands had agreed to stop milk production. As a result, the Council wrongly assumed that they had gone out of production and fixed a new levy scheme without taking them into account. There was a direct failure on the part of the Commission in that case, so compensation was paid. In this case, although the Commission is not directly responsible because it has channelled the money to Portugal, I argue that this is a question of the Commission not acting directly but employing agents—the Portuguese authorities—to act for it. Just as when our Government build roads they commission the county councils to carry out work on their behalf, I suggest that the Commission got the Portuguese authorities to act as its agent and gave them money to spend on a particular project. Although the Mulder case is not on all fours with this one, it indicates that when the Commission is found to be responsible for loss, as it was in the Mulder case, it pays what it should have paid in the first place.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that individuals in any member state should not find their lands or properties sequestrated or devalued by the actions of another member state using supranational funds. The Portuguese authorities siphoned off some of the superstate's funds to which member states had contributed. As matters stand, Mr. Wood has no way of being recompensed.
The Portuguese Government applied to the EU for money from our taxpayers. The Commission gave money from our taxpayers to the Portuguese to build a motorway. In so doing, and in not ensuring that the compensatory mechanisms were enshrined in Portuguese law, a British national has lost money that he invested in another member state. That has very serious ramifications for how the EU works and how it spends its money.
The Portuguese Government have thrown up their hands and said that it is nothing to do with them. The British Government, I am sure, will express similar sentiments, saying that they cannot look outside their own geographical boundaries. The EU, while recognising noise nuisance—and it was responsible for granting money to build a motorway in the first place—will no doubt deny its negligence, exalting the principle of subsidiarity in its defence. It cannot have it both ways. The EU can argue that this has nothing to do with it and that a member state is responsible, in which case it has a duty to ensure that by giving money the conditions should be in place that the compensatory powers exist in the member state. I am quite comfortable with the subsidiarity argument, but the

alternative is for the EU to argue that it got it wrong and was directly responsible for this through its servants and agents and now has to make good the loss.
This debate raises major constitutional principles and questions of legal responsibility. It is not really fair on the Minister, at this time of night—early though it is—suddenly to land him with a matter that is probably more suitable for the Prime Minister. However, I have great ambitions for the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that this is good training to see whether he can get out of this spot and deal with the matter as a future Prime Minister would. Clearly, he does not like to see injustice being done—he is a man of principle, well known for his sympathy and tolerance. I feel sure that now that I am raising a major constitutional principle, one of his first appointments tomorrow will be with the Prime Minister to say that in a fascinating Adjournment debate, matters of great concern were raised in a responsible, balanced and mature way.
In effect, the EU has raided its kitty—currently standing at £54 billion a year—because one member state wanted to accelerate the speed of its economic development without regard to the implications for the environment, noise emissions or individual properties. Surely it should do that only if the laws in the member state are up to speed in terms of pollution, noise management, environmental damage, accounting principles, value for money, public consultation procedures and the like. However, that can happen only if there is a new raft of officials, which I would be very reluctant to support. How can the EU enforce its rules and regulations unless it employs inspectors, enforcement officers and officials who are outside the responsibility of any member state?
We have a superstate giving out supranational funding to individual member states without sufficient monitoring. To have sufficient monitoring, the superstate would need inspection teams of supranational officials swarming around, checking, reporting, having endless meetings, occupying office buildings and administering budgets. That is what the British citizen was told would never happen, but it will happen if the case of Mr. Wood is to succeed.
If the EU is to avoid setting up another tier of bureaucracy, it has to use the bureaucracies of other countries, so that there is cross-border enforcement. Under that scheme, money given to the Portuguese would result in enforcement by the Germans, for example. Existing officials in member states could police each other. That would avoid having another layer of bureaucracy to enforce EU handouts.
There are two other possible ways to tackle the problem. First, a compensatory element could be included in all infrastructure grants to member states. That would cover claims made by individuals in member states affected by such developments. Once paid out by the member states, those sums would be recompensed by the EU, on receipt of proof of payment. A new EU law might be required to determine the levels of compensation available. However, whereas subsidiarity—under which member states pass their own laws—is delegation locally and regionally, power would be centralised if a compensatory element were added to the infrastructure grant. That compensation would then have to be accounted for.
I would go down the subsidiarity route, were it not for the fact that Mr. Wood has lost £200,000 or more. The relevant laws have not been passed. That option may be


available for the future, but what is to be done about Mr. Wood and his financial loss now? I should add that no additional money was added to the award from the EU for the motorway in Portugal, which was money only for its construction.
My second solution would be for Mr. Wood to go the whole hog: having lost as much as £250,000, why should he not lose the same amount again by resorting to the European Court of Human Rights? That is guaranteed to cost a lot of money, as top lawyers argue that his rights have been infringed.
Mr. Wood has recently retired, having sold a successful business—which, paradoxically, manufactures motorway signs, among other things—but I am not sure that Mr. Wood would want to throw good money after bad. That would no doubt be the result if he employed a fistful of lawyers to fight his case in Strasbourg.
What will the Government do? What can they do? No doubt, thousands of British nationals have been affected, or will be affected, by economic distortions resulting from EU intervention to fund public infrastructure works to be installed in a member state. which the member state could not fund without EU money.
Mr. Wood's case vividly demonstrates individuals' vulnerability against the superstate. As bureaucracy gets bigger, it will be harder and harder to pin down those responsible. Everyone will pass the buck, and the problem will be exacerbated by all the different languages involved.
I have given an example of an abuse perpetrated by the European superstate against an individual in one of its own member states. Britain is one of the richest countries in Europe, but we are ceding ever more authority to the supra-authority that the EU has become, and which is answerable to no one.
Last Friday, the National Audit Office reported on the level of bureaucratic waste and funding in the EU. The report should concern every taxpayer in the EU. Not only are we not getting value for money, but the supra-European state is failing to protect the interests of its individual constituents.
I am sure that the Minister will have read the main findings of the NAO report, which have been highlighted by NAO head Sir John Bourn. Those findings include significant weaknesses in the management of the budget and an unacceptably high rate of error in payment transactions—a rate similar to what had been found in previous years. There was also serious concern that little progress had been made since 1999. That huge bureaucratic monster has been allowed to deprive my constituent of the hard-earned cash that he had accumulated over the years to buy his retirement property. There is something very wrong about that.
Mr. Wood is not just a victim of the system. He is illustrative of the way in which assets can be sequestrated by state intervention, without anyone caring a toss about an individual's future welfare or health.
I lay down the gauntlet to the Government to take up Mr. Wood's case, and to make it a cause célèbre.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes

(Mr. Steen) on obtaining this debate on European Union policy as regards motorway construction and noise pollution, and on his highly informed—indeed exhaustively researched—speech. The debate gives me the opportunity to set out the United Kingdom's position on this important matter, and to show how the Government are taking forward the transport agenda in this country in a way that respects and protects the environment.
Needless to say, I shall make frequent reference to the application of European legislation, and our British experience may well have valuable lessons for the unfortunate case of Mr. Wood, which the hon. Member for Totnes described so graphically. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of wide-ranging concerns; not least among them were matters relating to the funding of infrastructure projects in the EU. Such matters are complex, and the hon. Gentleman has offered many novel solutions.
Specifically, the hon. Member for Totnes asked me to consider compensation arrangements in the EU in relation to motorway schemes. I undertake to do so, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about issues raised in the debate on which it might be appropriate for the Government to take further action in the EU. I also assure the hon. Gentleman that I am convinced that the important constitutional issues to which he has drawn the House's attention will be considered at the highest levels. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on the specific case in Portugal that he has set out.
We must not lose sight of the fact that well-developed and modern transport infrastructure is vital to the competitive strength of any economy. The hon. Member for Totnes does not dispute that, in western Europe, politicians have long recognised the need for an effective and efficient trans-European network. The demand for such a network comes from the citizens, as individuals and as economic agents. They wish to live and work in a sustainable economic environment that allows them to trade, communicate and travel throughout the EU, and into its neighbouring countries, as easily, quickly and cheaply as possible.
The importance that the EU attaches to good transport infrastructure is recognised in the very significant sums of money that it makes available to its development, particularly through the structural and cohesion funds. Such funding is a major element in the realisation of the key EU objectives of promoting economic and social progress and of gradually removing differences in living standards between the member states as well as between the regions. I note the progress that Portugal has made in that regard and, like the hon. Gentleman, I rejoice in that country's progress.
The European Union has also recognised growing concern about the adverse effects of new infrastructure. EU directive 85/337 made it a requirement for all member states to make public an assessment of the environmental impacts of major projects and their proposals for reducing the impacts. All EU member states are subject to the provisions of the environmental impact assessment. Annexe I to the directive lists those projects for which an environmental impact assessment is mandatory. Motorway construction is such a project. The 1997


amendment to EC directive 85/337, among other things required that the determination on whether fully to assess smaller projects should be made public.
Before a decision on consent can be given for a proposed motorway, the developer is required to prepare an environmental statement containing detailed information about the proposal, its likely environmental effects, the proposed mitigation measures to offset any adverse effects and an outline of the main alternatives that have been studied. There must also be a summary of all that information in non-technical language. This is important because the environmental statement is made available not only to environmental and other bodies with an interest, but to the public, who may make representations accordingly.
Consent may not be granted until the environmental statement, and any representations made about it, have been taken into account, although I should make it clear that the environmental information does not itself determine whether the application is accepted or refused. Projects whose environmental effects are likely to be adverse may still be approved if there are other overriding considerations such as improvements to road safety.
I have set out the clear requirements in terms of European Union legislation, which I assume were applied—or ought to have been—in this case. It will be important for the hon. Gentleman to peruse the official record in some detail to advise his constituent, Mr. Wood, as to the possibilities for recourse set against the criteria laid down in European legislation that I described. I shall explain how we are handling these matters in the UK.

Mr. Steen: Before the Minister moves on, is he saying that Mr. Wood might have a stronger case if the Portuguese did not follow the procedures? They cannot do away with the motorway, nor would he suggest that. Is he more likely to be able to make a case for compensation if the procedures were not followed, or is that only a matter for regret?

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am no lawyer. I am certainly no European Union lawyer—a particularly arcane area of study and pursuit. I am suggesting, however, that at least some of the provisions that I outlined would have been in place at the time that the motorway construction was undertaken and, therefore, might apply in this case; and that there were procedures that should certainly have been pursued according to European law. It would be very helpful if the hon. Gentleman and his constituent considered whether those procedures were applied, and then considered further action on the basis of that consideration. I will return to compensation later.
On the transport planning process in the United Kingdom, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government published their White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" in July 1998. That document set out the way in which UK transport infrastructure projects were to be short-listed, decided upon and taken forward. The key element of planning transport was to get a regional approach to transport problems and their potential solutions. Regional planning guidance and regional transport strategies would look at

where the problems were in the region and, after consultation with the relevant authorities and the public, put to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions their proposals for transport infrastructure projects. If those were agreed by the Secretary of State, they would then come forward for funding either as part of the targeted programme of improvements on the trunk road network, in local transport plans, or as part of the infrastructure programme from Railtrack or the train operating companies. That is part of the way in which we deal with such matters in the UK.
We recognised that that process could take some time and so we put in hand so-called multimodal studies that examine areas where there are transport problems and the various ways in which those might best be solved. They involve wide consultation. We now have the first of those reports and other studies will be reporting in the next few years.
Part of the comparison of the alternative solutions will be made using the "New Approach to Appraisal", which is designed to help to assess the implications of investment proposals against five criteria—safety, economy, environment, accessibility and integration. It enables us to compare different options for solving the same transport problem. In a number of instances, the most effective solution to a transport problem may be new or improved road infrastructure.
What do we do when we are dealing with new road infrastructure? Before those road proposals agreed by the Secretary of State are translated into projects on the ground, they go through processes set down in the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, which provide an opportunity for those affected to register objections. If those objections cannot be resolved, a public inquiry may be held. Where road construction necessitates acquisition of land or property, the procedures provide for payment of compensation to owners based on market values. If the value of a property is reduced by the opening of a nearby road scheme, the owner may claim compensation.
Alternatives are investigated and the viable options narrowed down as a basis for public consultation about the proposed route and its environmental effects.

Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman says that compensation may be payable. Does that relate to the value of the property before and after building? Is that the compensation value?

Mr. Hill: I can answer that technical question with a little more confidence: I think that the answer is certainly yes.
After all responses to the consultation have been considered, a preferred route is announced and safeguarded from development. For those intending to buy a property in the area, the intention to build a scheme will show up in local authority searches. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there were rumours and whispers about the Algarve scheme—evidently they were not present in any local authority materials that Mr. Wood may or may not have considered.
The preliminary design is then worked up and draft statutory orders are published under the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, together with


an environmental statement, as required by EU directive 85/337/EEC. Anyone directly affected by the proposals, and public bodies with legal responsibilities for protecting various aspects of the environment, have a statutory right of objection. If there are any unresolved statutory objections to the published draft orders, a local public inquiry will be held before an independent inspector. Once all objections, and the inspector's report if an inquiry was held, have been considered by the Secretary of State, a decision on the scheme is taken. The objectors are individually notified of the decision and a press notice is also issued. If the scheme proceeds, the land purchase orders are then made and the way is open for the construction contract to be awarded. That is the way we do it in this country. Clearly, EU directives impinge on our procedures—notably in respect of environmental impact.
I shall deal with noise policy and noise pollution—an issue of considerable concern in the case cited by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Steen: Before I mull over the points that the hon. Gentleman is about to make, I have some questions on environmental impact assessments. Are they not a bit of a red herring? I am familiar with them because a road at Slapton in my constituency was destroyed by the sea and, as it is a site of special scientific interest, an environmental impact assessment has to be carried out before a new road can be built. The assessment is a delaying tactic, is it not? It does not prevent anything from happening. The environmental impact statement is costly; it merely tells the Government, "You can go ahead, or you cannot go ahead". I may be wrong—I am not familiar with what such statements actually do. Can the Minister help me on that point?

Mr. Hill: In the House, the hon. Gentleman is famous as the hammer of bureaucracy and red tape—not least, of course, that which emanates from the European Union. However, I do not believe that he is right to describe environmental impact assessments as delaying tactics; sometimes, they are designed to meet precisely the type of problems that he outlines in the case of the unfortunate Mr. Wood—the question as to whether a proposed development will have an undesirable impact on the environment, not merely on flora and fauna, but on human beings as well.

Mr. Steen: I am all for them.

Mr. Hill: I am delighted to hear that my warm words have elicited the approbation of the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, he is pretty easy to persuade.
I shall say a few words about noise policy. Noise is one of the environmental issues to which we have given a great deal of thought. We recognised the benefit offered by quieter road surfaces—the hon. Gentleman spoke about those—and have promised that lower-noise surfacing will be used as a matter of course in all new infrastructure provision and maintenance work on the trunk road network. That means that lower-noise surfacing will be achieved without undue cost or disruption. In addition, we have undertaken to resurface all concrete roads within the next 10 years, including those that would not otherwise be due for resurfacing, because it is now recognised that such roads give rise to much greater concern about noise.
In total, we anticipate that more than 60 per cent. of the trunk road network will have been resurfaced by April 2011. [Interruption.] Again, I am glad that, from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman expresses his pleasure at that commitment, which is of significance to the A30, in an area not remote from his constituency. We have ensured that the Highways Agency will deal with particularly severe cases of noise arising from existing roads, where the road surface does not need early replacement, including the provision of noise barriers.
I turn now to compensation for noise. The adverse indirect effects of road construction, especially those built to motorway standards, on adjacent interests in land have been recognised for many years in this country. Before the 1970s, compensation was paid only in cases where land was compulsorily acquired for the construction. In the Land Compensation Act 1973, it was recognised that the noise, fumes and some other effects arising from traffic on a new road could have a significant effect on the value of properties some distance away.
There are inevitably some restrictions on the grounds for compensation. The adverse effects considered are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting and the discharge of any solid or liquid substance. The effects must be attributable to a newly constructed road, not to the increased use of an existing road. The claim is judged on the situation obtaining one year after the road has been open, assuming that all intended mitigation measures have been provided.
Claims can be lodged by owners, occupiers or long-term tenants only between one and seven years after the road has opened. The compensation may be reduced where some benefit is derived from the new development. Claims are normally settled by negotiation, but cases in which agreement cannot be reached may be referred to the independent Lands Tribunal.
I should add that the Land Compensation Act 1973 also requires highway authorities to take action to reduce the effect of excessive traffic noise on people's homes. It provided the Secretary of State with powers to prescribe, in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975, the circumstances in which it is considered appropriate for residential properties to be insulated against traffic noise.
Highway authorities were given further powers under the Highways Act 1980 to provide measures in road construction schemes to mitigate their adverse effects on the surrounding countryside. That included the power to acquire extra land to create features screening properties from the sight and other effects of new roads.
Techniques for assessing the environmental impact of major road schemes developed in the 1970s and 1980s were published in the 1983 manual of environmental appraisal. That included an assessment of traffic noise, based on the methods used to determine whether properties were likely to need insulation. The assessment also allowed for the consideration of the adverse effects at greater distances, based on the significance of changes in the noise climate.
Those are the sorts of recourse available to property owners, such as Mr. Wood, if such a fate were to threaten them or, indeed, befall them in the United Kingdom. Again, there may be lessons from the British experience


of the involvement of European legislation in many aspects of our domestic arrangements that may be of assistance to Mr. Wood.

Mr. Steen: As the Minister may know, I have corresponded with Commissioner Kinnock, and he was extremely receptive and very anxious to find a way to deal with such matters, but unfortunately the officials got the better of him. Despite clear indications that he would like to find a solution, Commissioner Kinnock has failed. He does not like to fail, but he has, and I wonder whether the Minister thinks that there is another route that I can take—because my track record is not to fail for my constituents.

Mr. Hill: I am certainly aware of the hon. Gentleman's excellent track record on behalf of his constituents. I dare say that explains his extremely long tenure in the House. If I may say it in a totally non-partisan spirit, we all rejoice in that.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about his correspondence with Commissioner Kinnock. However, representations in the Chamber are of incomparably greater significance than written exchanges, and the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised this important matter in the Chamber will add to the force of his case. I have also undertaken to consider his proposals carefully, and I shall pursue them if I think that there is any mileage in them. I shall inform him of any appropriate actions that I might take.
I hope that I have assured the hon. Gentleman that the unfortunate problems faced by his constituent, Mr. Wood, in Portugal would be unlikely to have arisen in this country. We recognise that the infrastructure needed by a modern and efficient country may have some adverse effects on the people who live near it, but we believe that those people who suffer from the use of the infrastructure should be properly compensated.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Nine o'clock.